Roots and Wings:\
Teaching English in Schools with Aboriginal Students

There are only two lasting bequests that we can leave to our children:\
one is roots; the other, wings. (Anonymous)

# Introduction

This article summarizes the general literature related to teaching
English in schools with Aboriginal students and reports the results of
an interview of this topic with a group of practising teachers in
northern Saskatchewan, comparing their responses to the literature.
Implications for teaching and suggestions for further research are
provided. This article will be relevant to teachers, curriculum
developers, administrators and policy-makers and to those who want to
address challenges and issues in teaching Aboriginal students an
academic curriculum delivered in English.

# Review of the Literature

## Statistics

As of January 2003, 1.3 million people Canadians claimed Aboriginal
ancestry. This represents a 22% increase amongst Aboriginal people in 5
years (Foot, 2003) compared to a 3.4% increase in the non-Aboriginal
population (CBC National News, January 22, 2003). However, the number of
North American people of Aboriginal ancestry speaking their ancestral
languages dropped by 29%, and only 3.5% now speak an Aboriginal language
as their mother tongue (ibid.). Today, 50% of the Aboriginal population
is under 25 years of age (ibid.) Aboriginal students make up 74% of the
Saskatchewan's total English as a Second Language/English as a Second
Dialect (ESL/ESD) student population, excluding band schools (Sask.
Education, 1997). These young people are our future and it is critical
that they receive adequate academic education and language education in
their first and additional languages, including English.

## The Distinctiveness of Aboriginal Students and Challenges to Their Education

Aboriginal people have diverse social, cultural, and linguistic
backgrounds (Goddard, 2002, Heit & Blair, 1993, Burnaby, 1982, Garret,
1996, Faries, 1991, Toohey, 1985). Most attend school in remote rural
northern communities and on reserves and speak Aboriginal languages or
an English dialect for most communications. Others attend school in
urban and southern regions (Burnaby, 1982, 1987, Heir & Blair, 1993).
For better or worse, the current provincial curriculum employs what is
known as the Standard English (SE) dialect as the medium of instruction
(MOI). This challenges Aboriginal students in schools because of little
emphasis on addressing their English language needs (Burnaby, 1982,
Faries, 1991, Hewitt, 2000).

This diversity presents compelling challenges for the teachers of
Aboriginal students. Studies identify inappropriateness in policy and
curriculum as well as the specific educational barriers facing
Aboriginal students as issues in education. Suggested solutions are
posed in the areas of appropriate language teaching approaches,
effective pedagogy, policy and curriculum reform, and the essential
inclusion of Aboriginal and post-colonialist perspectives in education
decision-making at all levels. Several identify inadequate teacher
awareness and training, too few Aboriginal teachers, little locally and
culturally relevant curricula and resources, and low levels of funding
as barriers to Aboriginal students' academic success (Beck, 2000,
Burnaby, 1982, Frasier, 1995, Smith, 1999, Yurkovich, 2001). Research
also focuses on the linguistic differences between Aboriginal-English
and SE dialects and negative attitudes towards dialects other than SE
(Goodwin, 1998, Adger, 1997, Malcolm, 1999, Rickford, 1998).

Barriers facing Aboriginal students are embedded within the larger
historical, social, and cultural context of education (Collier, 1995).
Sociocultural issues in Aboriginal education, include history and issues
of self-determination, school policy, Aboriginal control of education,
socioeconomic conditions of Aboriginal students, maintenance of
Aboriginal languages, and opportunities for students to express in their
own languages (Barman, et al., 1987, Szasz, 1974, Garrett, 1996,
Haig-Brown, 1995, Halfe, 2004, Beck, 2000, Smith, 1991). Poverty is
cited as a major factor in the success of Aboriginal students,
suggesting that "...unless the health, social, and economic conditions
of Native lives are generally improved, the problems of language
development and lower-than-average educational attainments levels will
regrettably remain a part of the Native experience at schools" (Sullivan
cited in BC Human Rights Commission, 2001, p. 49). In higher education
some students identify "a need to overcome an abuse mentality, ....an
inner struggle to eradicate a poor self image brought on by years of
family violence, substance abuse and deep seeded negative stereotypes
about Indian people as a whole" (Guerrero, 1999, p. 128).

Historical inequities in the education of Aboriginal people is now
recognized as a major cause of Aboriginal language loss, and the
challenges they face to maintain their cultural heritage and identity
(Barman, et al., 1987, Szasz, 1974, Garrett, 1996, Haig-Brown, 1995,
Collier, 1995, BC Human Rights Commission, 2001). School curricula and
instruction are cited as Eurocentric (Battiste, et al 2002) and
irrelevant to Aboriginal students' lives, needs, and learning styles
(Burnaby, 1982). Post colonial discourse contends that the entire
educational system has been and continues to be western-based and
Eurocentric, perpetuating the notion of student deficiency, and the
marginalization of Aboriginal people including the validity and status
of their knowledge, languages and cultures (Battiste et al, 2002).
Yoeman (2000, p. 121) cites post colonial writers who argue against
English as the MOI for Aboriginal students because of its colonialist
nature and others who argue in favour of English as MOI so that it can
be used to express Aboriginal reality to the world. Marie Battiste et al
(2002) explore consciousness-raising and working together of Aboriginal
and nonAboriginal people to address these challenges and develop
appropriate educational solutions for the benefit of all.

Studies conclude that the school learning environment is unfriendly and
exclusive, has inequities, views Aboriginal students as deficient, and
does not recognize the rich cultural and language experiences they
contribute (Barman, et al., 1987, Szasz, 1974, Garrett, 1996,
Haig-Brown, 1995, Collier, 1995, Toohey, 1985). Individual affective
factors such as low cultural identity, lack of confidence and
self-esteem, and anxiety contribute to Aboriginal students' educational
challenges (Collier, 1995, Frasier, 1995). They may see school as
socially and culturally alien with little connection to their home lives
(Frasier, 1995). They may also experience racism, and conflict or
confusion with mainstream school culture (Smith, 1999, Taras, 1996,
Haig-Brown, 1995, Guerrero, 1999, Hewitt, 2000).

The combination of so many factors may lead Aboriginal students to feel
there is no reason for attending and continuing school and their
achievement levels remain low (Szasz, 1974), and high attrition
continues across Canada.

## The Case for Linguistic Diversity 

Arguments justifying the importance of linguistic diversity and its
contribution to second language acquisition are convincing (Cummins,
2003, Reyhner, 1996, Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Education is essential for
linguistic and cultural maintenance.

> > The destiny of a people is intricately bound to the way its children
> > are educated. Education is the transmision of cultural DNA from one
> > generation to the next. It shapes the language and pathways of
> > thinking, the contours of character and values, the social skills
> > and creative potential of the individual. It determines the
> > productive skills of a people (Royal Commission on Aboriginal
> > Peoples \[RCAP\] 1996, vol. 3, p. 433 cited in Battiste, 2000).

Language involves more than oral and written communication. It is also
tied to values, culture, identity, history, literature, self-esteem and
understanding of self, concept formation, and worldview. By employing SE
as the only MOI in northern communities, schools do not meet the
students' linguistic, educational and affective needs (Burnaby, 1982,
Fairies, 1991). Once lost and replaced, languages and their associated
cultures are difficult, if not impossible, to fully regain.

> > When bilingual students are instructed, explicitly or implicitly, to
> > leave their language and culture at the schoolhouse door, they are
> > also being told that everything they have learned from parents and
> > grandparents up to this point in their lives has no value; the
> > language through which they have expressed themselves up to this
> > point in their lives has no value and must be replaced by a superior
> > model. In such classrooms, human potential is being diminished.
> > (Cummins, 2003, p. 5)

Emily Faries (1991) points out that although Aboriginal language is
taught as a school subject, it is not taught across the curriculum so
Canadian Aboriginal languages do not thrive. Educators sensitized to
post colonial discourse, aware of the implications of language loss and
the power of English to marginalize other languages, and supportive of
first language and dialect maintenance and growth for linguistic and
cultural diversity, as well as for expression and use in teaching across
the curriculum are much more able to address the goals and needs of
their students.

## Teaching Processes

Students who have difficulty understanding English, the current MOI in
provincial schools, will have difficulties in their school subjects
(Burnaby, 1982, Faries, 1991). Central to this is the impact of the
language teaching process. Ignoring dialect differences, for instance,
can affect the quality of education if dialect contributions and
influences are not addressed and if dialect speakers are negatively
stereotyped (Wolfram, et al., 1999). Teachers who have not discussed
post the colonialist perspective and with respect to education in
general, and language education specifically, may develop misconceptions
and unjustified attitudes towards the value of Aboriginal languages and
dialects in education. They may uncritically accept a foreign,
non-Aboriginal curriculum (Goddard, 2002).

In regards to literacy development, the differences and unfamiliarity of
written structures and conventions in SE appear to create additional
challenges for students who speak Aboriginal languages or dialects,
especially if they are from an oral tradition (Wolfram, et al., 1999,
Bashman & Kwachka, 1989). Aboriginal parents maintain that schools fail
to teach their children to read because instruction does not address
factors of dialect (Christian, 1997) such as interference, pronunciation
differences, spelling, grammar, and discourse patterns that are
reflected in their writing (Toohey, 1985, Clarke, 1983). Consequently,
teachers may focus on what they see as student deficiencies and error
correction rather than on meaning (Clarke, 1983, Bashman & Kwachka,
1989, Blackburn & Stern, 2000).

Too few teachers know about their students' cultural and linguistic
backgrounds or understand the challenges and political issues inherent
in learning and using SE (Fillmore, 2000). When a teacher underestimates
a student's ability because of a linguistic difference, the student may
fail in school, or be identified as developmentally delayed or deficient
in some other way. Speaking a different language or dialect is also
recognized as a rather than an asset so that these students are not
identified and promoted into gifted programs (Fillmore, 2000, Flores et
al., 1991, Christian, 1997).

Finally, lack of culturally, linguistically locally appropriate is a
major obstacle in implementing effective language programs, and in using
methods of teaching that are effective for Aboriginal students and their
contexts (Fredeen, 1990). Barbara Burnaby (1982) adds that ESL material
addressing immigrant students' needs is not culturally appropriate for
Aboriginal students.

## Appropriate Education for Aboriginal Students

Doug Hewitt (2000) points out that because many factors contribute to
learning, blaming students for failures by putting them in remedial
classes and having low academic expectations only prolongs educational
inequality and labeling the students as deficient in some way. Also
important is an appropriate school environment that promotes academic
success by being a supportive, safe place for Aboriginal students to
learn and have a sense of belonging (Haig-Brown, 1995).

There are a number of examples of projects addressing sociocultural
barriers, adjustment processes and promoting sharing amongst
non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal K-12. These include the Sacred Circle
project (1983--1985) implemented first in the Edmonton Public School
District and later in Ontario and Saskatchewan (Fredeen, 1990) and
Australia's "Language and Communication Enhancement for Two-Way
Education" (Malcolm, et al., 1995) and "Towards More User-Friendly
Education for Speakers of Aboriginal English" (Malcolm, et al., 1999).
Marie Battiste (2002) lists a number of other programs and materials
suitable for language development.

Also discussed in the literature is the importance of joint efforts
amongst the school, home, and community (Faries, 1991, McGroarty, 1998,
Smith, 1999). Aboriginal parents are interested in their children's
education (Smith, 1999) and, along with other caregivers and community
agencies, have significant roles to play in helping Aboriginal students
succeed by ensuring locally relevant curricula. McGroarty (1998) notes
that school-parent-community partnerships, particularly when they
involve first language (L1) and cultural understanding, can be
transformative, often leading to positive reform in policy and
curricula. Strategies include having Aboriginal parents and elders as
regular participants in schools to maintain students' cultural and
linguistic knowledge, or working in classrooms as volunteer tutors and
translators (Taras, 1996, McGroarty, 1998, Robb, 1995).

Aginhotri (1995) notes that worldwide, multilingualism is the norm,
adding that children do not have difficulty learning several languages
simultaneously. Gerda De Klerk (1995b) suggests that knowing more than
one language is an asset because it develops cognitive flexibility,
metalinguistic awareness, abstract, critical and creative thinking, and
increasing communicative sensitivity with monolingual people. Faries
(ibid.) contends that L1 development is essential to maintain Aboriginal
cultures, languages, self-esteem and identity as well as to improve
Aboriginal students' academic achievement. Aboriginal language
maintenance allows students to transmit Indigenous knowledge and culture
more effectively. Aboriginal language can be promoted by including their
use in the school, community, and at home (Burnaby, 1982, Faries, 1991,
Yoeman, 2002). Yoeman (2002) suggests eight practical strategies to
support L1 maintenance .

According to Battiste, Bell and Findlay (2000)

> > ...the most significant problem facing Indigenous people in the
> > Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 1995-2004 has been to
> > restore Indigenous ecologies, consciousnesses, and languages after
> > Eurocentric colonization and the destruction it authorized from its
> > viral sources, and to understand how this history continues to
> > imprison thought and constrain the conduct of the colonizer and the
> > colonized alike. (p. 84)

These writers call for decolonizing education through "multilateral
processes of understanding and unpacking the central assumptions of
domination, patriarchy, racism, and ethnocentrism ... " (Ibid.) While
their writing focuses on post-secondary education, it is equally
relevant for the K-12 sector. They note that "decolonizing requires the
institutional and system-wide centering of the Indigenous renaissance
and its empowering, intercultural diplomacy." (Ibid). Goddard (2002)
calls for critical discourse amongst school administrators and teachers
to ensure appropriate policy, curriculum, methodology and materials.
These ideas challenge each educator to become a change agent, by raising
his or her consciousness and by becoming sensitized to the injustices of
the past and the need for education that is more appropriate for
Indigenous people.

## Pedagogical Approaches to English Language Teaching and First Language Maintenance

The literature identifies the following approaches to support English
development where English is the medium of instruction (MOI) students:
bidialectism; additive bilingualism; adapted English instruction;
communicative content/task-based teaching; and teaching using the
students' first language or dialect as the MOI.

Borrowing from sociolinguistics, the bidialectical approach uses
contrastive analysis to develop SE. L1 becomes a resource; the goal is
to build on students' first language or dialect knowledge and show them
explicitly the differences between their speech and the English required
for academics (Adger, 1997, Corder, 1994, Goodwin, 1998, Rickford,
2001). This can lead to metalinguistic awareness, allowing effective use
of both SE and dialects or first languages (Adger, 1997, Rickford, 1998,
Goodwin, 1998). Toohey (1986) suggests the instruction must go beyond
teaching discrete structural features to instruction on functional
linguistic differences. Part of the bidialectical approach is giving
students a clear message that maintaining their dialect or language is
essential (Wolfram, et al., 1999).

Where the majority of the school population speaks an Aboriginal
language or a dialect, bilingual programs usually take an additive
approach to second language learning (Heit & Blair, 1993, Faries, 1991).
Subject area instruction is almost entirely in the students' first
language or dialect in early grades, while English is taught as an
academic subject. Instruction gradually switches to English in later
grades in some subjects (Faries, 1991, Goodwin, 1998).

Adapted English instruction adds modifications to the regular English
language arts program to accommodate diversity and be culturally
responsive. Adaptations occur in curriculum, content, instructional
practices, evaluation and the learning environment (Smith, 1999).
Characteristics of the approach include using Aboriginal teaching staff
as role models, building on students' prior knowledge and experiences,
making traditional Aboriginal rituals and cultural activities central,
implementing appropriate traditional pedagogy, and using culturally
appropriate materials. Holistic, student-centered methods such as whole
language, language experience approach (LEA), and literature-based
approaches to teaching have proven successful in schools in northern
communities (Fredeen, 1990). Techniques such as sharing circles,
experiential learning and demonstration (Smith, 1999), and extensive
reading and writing practice based on students' personal and cultural
experiences (Taras, 1996) are primary in adapted instruction.

Communicative content/task-based language teaching is used to promote
academic and communicative language development by involving students in
real life tasks and meaningful projects (Leavitt, 1991). The focus
shifts from traditional teaching methods to engaging activities using
authentic subject-related materials. Students study in small groups with
teacher support to develop critical thinking and learning strategies,
and academic independence (Taras, 1996). Other strategies include:
having high academic expectations of students; using scaffolding and
modeling; encouraging student self assessment; allowing students choice
in learning materials; and using cognitive coaching and tutorial support
rather than intensive correction (Smith, 1999, Taras, 1996, Heit &
Blair, 1993).

Writer Louise Halfe recently said, "Let them speak in their own voice.
They'll learn English when the have to"(2004). Teaching an Aboriginal
curriculum using the students' L1 as the MOI has been practiced
successfully in some band schools. This approach is advocated to ensure
cultural viability since culture and cultural knowledge is best
expressed through the language(s) with which that culture is associated.
In addition, using the students' L1 ensures the vitality of that
language and the linguistic diversity that benefits all humanity (Daes
2000 quoted by Battiste 2004). Instruction of academic subjects in the
students' L1 is an that must be created by Aboriginal people to serve
their own interests (Battiste, 2004). It recognizes that a Western-based
curriculum is not neutral and should not be viewed as more valid than
locally developed curricula and knowledge (Goddard, 2002). This approach
is empowering and will vary according to the goals and needs of each
Aboriginal group and local contexts.

Approaches implemented with disempowered populations and in developing
countries known as empowerment, critical, or transformative pedagogies
aim to counteract the dominance of English and its power to subtly
victimize peoples and their cultures. These approaches advocate
techniques such as problematization, problem-posing, biliteracy,
critical literacy, discovering one's voice, and discussing language
maintenance as part of the struggle for justice and equality (Ada, 1988,
Alexander, 1995, Auerbach, 1995, Brouse, 1996, Cummins, 1999, Freire,
1970, Pennycook, 1994, Wallerstein, 1982).

Other approaches include "adjunct support" (Roessingh, 1999), which
introduces students to academic concepts in sheltered situations before
or at the time they learn these concepts in regular courses. South
African educators have suggested and in some provinces implemented
clustering schools or twinning privileged with poor schools to maximize
resource use and sharing. Teaching and learning centres have also been
established to involve the community, and to support teachers, teacher
trainers, curriculum developers and researchers working with language
minority students (Heugh & Siegrühn, 1995). Tim Goddard (2002) has made
efforts in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan to establish a directory of
culturally and linguistically appropriate programming for the use of
isolated schools.

Finally, incorporating traditional Indigenous pedagogy and local and
global Indigenous knowledge is essential. Robert Leavitt (1991) contends
that "the most significant differences between English and Indian, and
Inuit languages are found in their ways of conceptualizing, preserving
and transmitting knowledge" (p. 269). For Aboriginal people, traditional
teaching is important in transmitting knowledge, understanding one's
life experience, conveying information, developing identity, and
maintaining cultural heritage and languages. This includes strategies
that cultivate the Aboriginal oral tradition (Atleo, 2000) such as story
telling and story/talking/sharing circles (Garret, 1996, Hart, 1996,
Orr, 2000, Sask. Education, 1999). Teachers can engage students in
activities that promote pride in Aboriginal heritage and traditions
through involvement of elders, and organizing and participating in
Aboriginal events (Orr, 2000, Haig-Brown, 1995). Some contend that
Indigenous pedagogy tends to encourage cooperative and experiential
teaching and learning, a child-centred environment, learning through
modeling and observation, tutoring, artistic creation, a holistic
approach to education, and including Aboriginal spirituality (Heit &
Blair, 1993, Malcolm, et al, 1999, Orr, 2000). In fact, these strategies
are also useful for many nonAboriginal students. Particularly relevant
is linking academic content to students' prior knowledge and experience
(Anderson, 1990, Taras, 1996, Blake & Sickle, 2001, Wolfram, et al.,
1999, Malcolm, et al., 1999) and the use of culturally appropriate
materials. De Klerk (1995) emphasizes that a "resource-based" approach
in which teachers find, develop, or adapt culturally relevant materials
must be accompanied by professional development for teachers.

Literacy development is singled out in the literature as being
particularly relevant for Aboriginal ESL or ESD students identified as
needing language support where English is the MOI. Teachers and
researchers (Garret, 1996, Wolfram, et al, 1999, Malcolm, et al., 1999)
find the Language Experience Approach (LEA) useful at beginning levels.
The Whole Language Approach, is cited as a way to contextualize
students' experiences by providing relevant and authentic materials and
rich opportunities for students to learn language of importance to their
lives (Wolfram, et al., 1999). Writing process activities also provide
meaningful content for linguistically diverse Aboriginal students
(Anderson, 1990, Edwards, 1980) and activates their prior knowledge and
experience (Wolfram, et al., 1999). Wolfram, et al. also recommends the
"consensus model" which incorporates reading strategies such as teacher
modeling, use of authentic texts, and scaffolding. Research supports the
role of students' oral language, such as metaphorical use of language,
to build literacy skills (Malcolm, 1999, Scott, 1993). The literature
also suggests teachers specifically address speech-writing differences
(Coleman, 1997, Wolfram, et al., 1999, Edwards, 1980). Linguistic
variances from SE that are evident in writing should not be seen as
errors, but be used to support the bidialectical approach (Anderson,
1990, Wolfram, et al., 1999) and help students learn to select SE forms
when appropriate (Anderson, 1990). This, however, contradicts Halfe's
(2004) advice to "let them speak in their own voice.\"

## Other Practices Supporting Language Education for Aboriginal Students

A number of other practices are cited in the literature to support
Aboriginal students' language development in their first and additional
languages*.* First, educational administrators and teachers need
appropriate professional training and support to address the challenges
of students' with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Fillmore,
2000). Many institutions have developed effective training to help
teachers support their students in functioning biculturally and
bilingually (Barman, 1987, Burnaby, 1982, Szasz, 1974, Malcolm, 1995).
In addition, teachers need to feel adequate and empowered themselves in
order to instill student confidence (Ada, 1991 in Heugh & Siegrühn,
1995). Since the majority of educators, both Aboriginal and
nonAboriginal, are products of a Eurocentric curriculum, all should
participate in post colonial discourse to heighten sensitivity to
historical and prevailing inequities and facilitate appropriate
approaches to policy, curriculum and pedagogical reform.

Appropriate teaching practices cannot be separated from ESL/ESD policy.
Helen Robb (1995) contends "education will always be a political issue
because it has the potential for empowering traditionally disempowered
groups" (p. 18). Neville Alexander (1995) argues that policies must
recognize that barriers of language are related to larger struggles for
equality, liberty and to socio-economic conditions. He advocates
state-sponsored language awareness programs. Not all Canadian provinces
have educational policies that take language needs into account. A
reference committee of stakeholders including teachers is currently
developing such a policy for Saskatchewan. Heugh and Siegrühn (1995)
note the importance of teacher input at the school level where they say
the impetus for policy change "is likely to come from teachers within
the school simply because they are directly confronted by the education
system's inadequacy in catering for the needs of linguistically diverse
students" (p. 91).

The school system often ignores Aboriginal contributions to society in
the curriculum (Haig-Brown, 1995, Frasier, 1995). Celia Haig-Brawn
(1995), identifies a culturally relevant curriculum, as "a program which
will maintain balance and relevancy between academic/skill subjects and
Indian cultural subjects" (p. 150), and holds as central in the
curriculum Aboriginal culture, heritage, languages, and contributions.
This approach takes advantage of what both cultures have to offer and
helps students move confidently between the two cultures (Leavitt,
1991). Teachers currently working with a Western-based curriculum can
include Aboriginal content in theme-based units to ensure recognition
and respect of the culture, knowledge and experiences that Aboriginal
students bring to school. In addition, teachers can engage Aboriginal
students in meaningful ways to learn the history and geography of their
communities---for example, "through hikes and canoe trips, map study,
readings, oral history, road-building, religious and legal history,
archaeological, mythology, hunting and fishing activities, agriculture"
(Leavitt, 1991, p. 274). Haig-Brown (1995) calls for joint funding
efforts at the federal and provincial government levels to allow
professional curriculum developers and Aboriginal people to collaborate
on the development of culturally inclusive curricula.

# A Case from Northern Saskatchewan 

The author met with middle school teachers in northern Saskatchewan.
English is the MOI in these schools. The purpose was compare the
literature with the challenges and needs voiced by practising teachers.
By meeting with teachers, this literature review could begin to be
validated.

The session was held in a northern school with nine teachers from three
communities (populations approximately 1360, 1384 and 900) with
significant numbers of Aboriginal people. Eight of the teachers averaged
of 10 years each teaching experience. Seven had been raised in or
northwest of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, considered the gateway to the
North. All but two had graduated from the University of Saskatchewan's
NORTEP (Northern Teacher Education Program) or SUNTEP (Southern Urban
Teacher Education Program). One teacher from out-of-province had
completed a 5-year teaching degree with experience in rural and remote
communities.

Directors of the two School Divisions identified the teachers and gave
them time to attend the 2-hour session. Teachers were divided into two
groups with two researchers on hand to take notes, ask for
clarification, keep the discussion on track, or probe responses where
necessary. The two groups came together at the end of the session to
share their responses. The responses were written up and sent to
teachers for verification.

## Summary of Teacher Comments and Comparison to the Literature

The teachers reported that their students were mainly Metis and spoke
English, Dene, Cree, Michif or a dialect of English. Street talk
includes aspects of Aboriginal languages and is used with peers and
siblings, but not with teachers. Most students learn English at school
and at home, and if not from a traditional home they only understand
isolated words and phrases of Aboriginal languages. English proficiency
of those from traditional homes may be limited. Some may not admit to
understanding Aboriginal languages. Cree and Dene classes are offered in
some schools, but many students are still unable to converse in these
languages. This is confirmed in the literature. In more isolated
communities and in northern band schools, Aboriginal languages are still
spoken because there are fewer outside influences. Teachers stated that
while English is crucial for academic success, L1 maintenance is also
important, another point emphasized in the literature.

Teachers appreciated the straightforwardness and honesty of their
students and the rewards of their work with them which included seeing
students grasp concepts, enjoying learning, and student involvement in
topics of interest to them, sharing what they've learned with parents,
setting personal goals and maturing.

When asked about students' greatest linguistic challenges in academic
English, teachers reported that students required vocabulary
development, concept formation, grammar and word attack skills. Teachers
sometimes found themselves translating terminology into easier language
and reported that some students also needed pronunciation work. They
noted that students were weak writers in SE. These weaknesses were
attributed only partly to the fact that they may speak an Aboriginal
language or dialect of English. Some of these same challenges are
identified in the literature. Teachers also said that the Whole Language
Approach imposed on teachers in past did not adequately address phonics
and should therefore share the blame for students' difficulties. The
literature advocates for the use of Whole Language. It could be that
those teaching younger students need additional professional development
opportunities in this approach that urge teachers to use phonics when
necessary. While teachers reported that students' reading abilities were
good, they said that students could not always identify with materials
that are not culturally relevant. Again, the need for culturally
appropriate materials is cited in the literature. Other challenges
identified by these teachers were as follows:

-   working in multilevel classrooms; students vary in English language
    proficiency and academic ability; some students are older than their
    peers

-   identifying student needs and cognitive challenges if the teacher
    does not speak students' language(s). Research suggests teachers
    learn at least one local language (Robb, 1995)

-   difficulties implementing resource based learning because it is
    time-consuming and culturally appropriate resources are limited. The
    literature notes the need for appropriate professional development
    in this area (De Klerk, 1995).

-   limited resources, such as too few computers in classrooms, few
    culturally appropriate resources, no assigned series of textbooks
    that allow for a progression of instruction particularly for
    transient students and new teachers

-   a curriculum that is too broad with too little guidance in terms of
    a progression of learning from grade to grade

-   budgetary constraints. Limited financial resources were also cited
    in the literature.

When asked what they do to address students' linguistic needs, teachers.
identified some appropriate books such as *Melanie Blue Lake's Dream,*
*Daily Oral Language,* and series such as *Collections* and *Explode the
Code*. Strategies used to address students' needs include: explicit
vocabulary study; use of many examples, particularly those that make
abstract concepts concrete; short activities and exercises that promote
repetition and support academic study; letter and journal writing;
research and presentations, especially those related to their lives and
communities; reading and book reports. One teacher has students tape
record what they have written and listen to it to develop
self-monitoring skills. That teacher also uses a computer program for
adults that supports learning English. She notes that such programs need
adaptation for use in K-12 settings. Where possible, teachers relate
academic content to students' lives. The only similar strategies in the
literature were the final one: relating activities related to students'
lives.

Teachers felt well prepared through their teacher education programs.
They noted that ESL methods courses were part of the curriculum. They
appreciated the helpfulness of relevant internship experiences
throughout their training. Their comments reflected the fact that the
teacher educators in those programs understand the backgrounds of
Aboriginal teachers and students. Respondents sympathized with those who
did not have similar educational experiences. Respondents acknowledged
that it is easier for teachers from the North to teach there, especially
if they are familiar with local languages, dialects and cultures. Such
teachers can identify with their students' struggles more easily, since
they may have had similar experiences themselves when they were in
school. The literature supports having Aboriginal teachers who know the
languages and cultures of their students and can be role models (Faries,
1991). In spite of their expertise, they still call for appropriate
teacher education and professional development for themselves.

The teachers called for provincial funding to support the following
initiatives: better-equipped classrooms; series of textbooks; culturally
appropriate materials available in libraries; culturally appropriate
assessment tools; trained special education and ESD/language
consultants; training of local teachers with knowledge of local
languages as testers; professional development workshops in ESD and
linguistics; orientations for new teachers; and opportunities to share
with colleagues in similar teaching contexts. Appropriate materials and
increased funding were the main suggestions that also appeared in the
literature reviewed for this study.

## Discussion

There was some similarity between the comments of northern teachers
interviewed and the literature, but a number of differences. Teachers'
comments regarding student diversity coincided with the literature. They
accepted the need for English language development because it is the MOI
in school. They did not state instruction should be in the students'
first language(s), but they were not explicitly asked this question.
Students' sociocultural contexts were not cited as being problematic,
although teachers were not questioned specifically on this topic.

Because of student linguistic diversity in these communities, English
is, in fact, the common language for their students. It would be a
challenge to formalize use of the bidialectical approach, bilingualism
or instruction in the students' first language or dialect because
teachers do not necessarily speak local languages. However, those who do
speak Aboriginal languages use aspects of these approaches. It would be
more viable to implement adapted English language instruction or
communicative content/task-based language instruction in these
communities.

While the teachers seem cognizant of their students' needs and learning
styles, this is likely because many are Aboriginal people from northern
communities who have been through those same school systems. The
literature calls for teachers to become familiar with learning styles
and languages or dialects of their students when teaching to assure
greater academic success. This has implications in southern and urban
areas where teachers may not have linguistic and cultural knowledge yet
find linguistically diverse students in their classrooms. Aboriginal
teachers who know local languages or dialects were not concerned over
negative attitudes toward linguistic differences. However, they showed
insight by suggesting the need for orientations to the North and
teaching contexts for teachers coming from the South.

There are a sufficient number of Aboriginal students in these schools
for the formation of supportive peer groups. It is probable that
acceptance and self-esteem are greater challenges in urban schools where
Aboriginal students and their languages, dialects and cultures are in
the minority and where social problems are more marked.

The literature points out the dearth of culturally appropriate
materials, a frustration echoed by these teachers. The literature
particularly notes that Indigenous knowledge is rarely included in
educational materials.

As reported in the literature, these teachers realized that students who
speak Aboriginal languages or dialects need extra help in achieving the
expectations of the provincial curriculum particularly in academic
concept formation, English vocabulary development, and English written
expression. The literature cites reading as difficult for students who
speak an Aboriginal language or dialect of English, but these teachers
did not note this as a problem. Nevertheless, teachers do recognize the
need for a language consultant to advise them on how to best help
linguistically diverse students and the need for testers with knowledge
of local languages, dialects and cultures. They suggested that the
testers should be drawn from existing knowledgeable northern teaching
staff.

In spite of confidence in their teaching, the teachers still call for
professional development events and such specialized assistance and
professional development as suggested in the literature. They also noted
that they wanted opportunities to get together with their colleagues to
share challenges and solutions, an idea that emerged because this
opportunity was provided during their discussion. None addressed post
colonial perspectives or the notion that they might be "purveyors of the
status quo" (Goddard, 2002), although they were no asked to give their
opinions on the appropriateness of the curriculum.

The literature cites the importance of community and parental
involvement. While community involvement was not discussed by these
teachers, they noted that parents did want to become involved, but do
not know how. Some also ask students to do community-based assignments.
It appears that the ideas in the literature may contribute to parental
and community involvement in these schools.

These teachers as well as the literature cite inadequate funding as a
barrier to implementing initiatives such as professional development for
teachers and specialists, acquiring appropriate resources, developing
curriculum reform and programs to include parents and the community in
education.

# Implications

There are several implications to be derived from the literature and
teacher input for government, administrators, and those teaching
Aboriginal linguistically diverse Aboriginal students. First is the need
for sound policy based on knowledge of the special challenges and
barriers facing Aboriginal students and their teachers. Serious
attention to post colonial perspectives is essential to policy reform
for Aboriginal education. The policy should incorporate the input of
local teachers, school administrators as well as students, their
caregivers, and the community.

Second, is the need for a practicable curriculum that is appropriate for
Aboriginal students. Such a curriculum must be based on reformed policy,
needs assessment, input from Aboriginal people, best practices in
language instruction for disempowered groups, and what is feasible in
remote as well as urban schools. The input of teachers from a variety of
teaching contexts is also essential to curriculum reform for Aboriginal
students. The curriculum must be supported by culturally and
linguistically relevant materials that ensure Indigenous knowledge is
primary. Language specialists sensitized to the power of English and
well-versed in linguistics and cultural issues must be made available to
support teachers in this area. Tests should be examined for culture and
linguistic fairness and testers be familiar with local languages and
cultures where testing occurs. Curricula should be living documents that
are revised regularly to address teacher and student goals and needs.

Next is the need to support teachers with professional development
opportunities to provide ongoing instruction in new methods such as
bidialectism and process writing, and in tried but failed strategies
such as the Whole Language Approach and resource-based teaching.
Teachers need opportunities to learn about and share post colonial
perspectives and to voice their frustrations and solutions at
conferences and special regional meetings. Because teachers are the best
people to suggest changes, the results of these meetings should be
available to those developing curricula. Because of geographical
distance, the suggestion of clustering or twinning schools and
establishing teaching and learning centres may enhance the use of
financial resources. Finally, involvement of the community, parents and
other caregivers will involve ongoing organizational efforts as well as
dedicated funding. The rewards of these efforts should lead to a caring
and sharing community, which views the appropriate education of their
children as an investment in the future of their languages and cultures.

# Further Research

There are a number of opportunities for further research related to the
topic of teaching to linguistically diverse students of Aboriginal
ancestry. Wherever possible, studies should be participatory and
collaborative, involving Aboriginal stakeholders, particularly teachers
of Aboriginal students, the students themselves, parents and the
community. In addition to ensuring the input of those most closely
involved in linguistic instruction for Aboriginal students, is the value
of conveying to those stakeholders that language is seen as an important
issue in student success. There is a need to conduct studies of greater
depth and breadth than the one reported in this paper. This would
include research with teachers in other School Divisions within
Saskatchewan and in other provinces using such research strategies as
focus groups, in-depth surveys, action research, story dialogues
(Labonte & Feather, 1996), and critical pragmatism or critical
constructivism as described in Goddard (2002, p. 125). Linguistic
analyses of Aboriginal languages as compared to academic English are
needed (Theresa Dery, personal communication) to implement
bidialecticalism. In addition, action research to implement
bidialectism, adapted English language instruction, adjunct support,
empowerment education and other strategies should be measured with
formative and summative evaluations to assess their effectiveness.
Finally, other ideas suggested in the literature such as twinning and
clustering of schools, involving community, setting up teaching and
learning centres could be implemented and tested for their usefulness in
supporting the education of linguistically diverse students.

# Conclusions

Research indicates that we cannot ignore the needs of linguistically
diverse Aboriginal students and their teachers. The teachers interviewed
confirm much of what the literature suggests and also extend those
ideas. Further discussions with practising teachers will ensure that
their voices are heard for the benefit of all. At the same time,
teachers and administrators can benefit from studying suggested
strategies from the literature.

# References

Ada, A.F. (1988). Creative reading: A relevant methodology for language
minority children. In L.M. Malave (Ed.) NABE '87. *Theory, research and
application: Selected Papers*. Buffalo, NY: State University of New
York.

Adger, C. T. (1997). Issues and implications of English dialects for
teaching English as a second language. TESOL Professional Paper #3.\
Online: www.tesol.edu/pubs/profpapers/adger1.html

Aginhotri, R. (1995). Multilingualism as a classroom resource. K. Heugh
and A. Siegrühn Plüddemann (Eds.) *Multilingual education for South
Africa*. pp. 3--7. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Alexander, N. (1995). Multilingualism for empowerment. K. Heugh and A.
Siegrühn Plüddemann (Eds.) *Multilingual education for South Africa*.
pp. 37--41. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Anderson, E. (1990). Teaching users of diverse dialects: Practical
approaches. *Teaching English in the two-year college* (TETYC), 17 (3),
pp. 172--177.

Atleo, M. R., & James, A. (2000). Oral Tradition---A Literacy for
Lifelong Learning: Native American Approaches to Justice and Wellness
Education. In *AERC 2000: An International Conference*. T. J. Sork, V-L.
Chapman, and R. St. Clair (Eds.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult
Education Research Conference, British Columbia, June 2--4, 2000, pp.
535--536. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2000.\
Online: <http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2000/atleom&jamesa-web.htm>

Auerbach, E. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power
in pedagogical choices. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.) *Power and inequality in
language education*. NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9--33.

Barman, J., Hebert., & McCaskill. (1986). The legacy of the past: An
overview. In Barman, et al. (Eds.) *Indian education in Canada. Volume
1: The Legacy*. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. (v. 1), pp. 1--21.

Basham, C. & Kwachka, P. (1989). Variation in modal use by Alaskan
Eskimo writers. In S. Gass, L., Selinker, C. Madden, and D. Preston
(Eds.) *Variation in second Language Acquisition: Discourse and
Pragmatics*. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters. pp. 129--143.

Battiste, M. (2004). Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A responsibility
and a challenge. Teleconference to the Canadian Association of
University Continuing Education, Feb. 10.

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations
education: A literature review and recommendations. Paper prepared for
the National Working Group on Education and the Minister of Indian
Affairs, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa ON.

Battiste, M., Bell, L, & Findlay, L.M. (2002). Decolonizing education in
Canadian Universities: An interdisciplinary, international, Indigenous
research project. *Canadian Journal of Native Education*, 26(2), pp.
82--95.

BC Human Rights Commission. (2001)*. Barriers to equal education for
Aboriginal learners: A review of the literature.* BC Human Rights
Commission Report, May, 2001.

Beck, D. R. M. (2000). Native American education in Chicago: Teach them
truth. *Education and Urban Society,* 32 (2) (February 2000). pp.
237--255.

Blackburn, M. & Stern, D. (2000). Analyzing the role of the vernacular
in student writing: A social literacies approach. ERIC Clearinghouse:
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 16 (1), pp. 53--69. Spring,
2000.

Blake, M.E. & Sickle, M.V. (2001). Helping linguistically diverse
students share what they know. *Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy*,
44 (5). Pp. 468--475. February, 2001.

Brouse, E. (1996). Multiculturalism, education, and the ESL educator.
Unpublished paper for TESL 43, Independent Studies Course, University of
Saskatchewan.

Burnaby, B. (1982). *Language in education among Canadian native
peoples*. Language and Literacy Series. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.

CBC News. (January 21, 2003). Cree classes seek new generations of
speakers.\
Online: <http://sask.cbc.ca/template/servlet/View?filename=cree20030121>

Christian, D. (1997). Vernacular dialects in U.S. schools. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC. ERIC
Publication (ED 406846).

Clarke, P. (1983). An approach to ESD writing problems. *TESL Talk*, 14
(3). Pp. 48--57.

Coleman, C. (1997). Our students write with accents---Oral paradigms for
ESD students. *College*

*Composition and Communication* (CCC), 48 (4), pp.486--500.

Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school.
Directions in Language & Education. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education. 1 (4), Fall, 1995.

Corder, S.P. (1994). A role for the mother tongue. S.M. Gass, and L.
Selinker (Eds.) (1994). *Language transfer in language learning*.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 18--31.

Cummins, J. (2003). Language and the human spirit. *TESOL Matters*,
13(1). Dec--Feb, pp. 1 & 5.

Cummins, J. (1999). Biliteracy, empowerment, and transformative
pedagogy.\
Online: <http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/biliteratempowerment.html>

De Klerk, G. (1995). Bilingualism, the devil and the big wide world. K.
Heugh and A. Siegrühn Plüddemann (Eds.) *Multilingual education for
South Africa*. pp. 53--62. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

De Klerk, G. (1995b). Three languages in one school: A multilingual
exploration in a primary school. K. Heugh and A. Siegrühn Plüddemann
(Eds.) *Multilingual education for South Africa*. pp. 28--33.
Johannesburg: Heinemann Edwards, 1980).

Faries, E. J. (1991). *Language education for northern native children:
A case study.* Doctoral Thesis. Toronto, ON: Department of Education.

Fillmore, L. W. & Snow. C. (2000). What teachers need to know about
language. Paper prepared with funding from the US Department of
Education's office of Educational Research and Improvement. Center for
Applied Linguistics.

Flores, B., Cousins, P.T. & Diaz, E. (1991). Transforming deficit myths
about learning, language, and culture. *Language Arts*, 68, September
1991, pp.369--379.

Foot, R. (2003). Aboriginal population jumps 22% in five years: Numbers
are staggering. National Post, January 22, 2003.\
Online:
<http://www.nationalpost.com/national/story.html?id=E4042409-2306-43C8-A298-0BCA54080F89>

Fredeen, S. (1990). *English* *as a second language and French as a
second language programs and services for Indian and Metis students in
the Northern Lights School Division: Overview and recommendations for
research*. Saskatoon, SK: SSTA Research Centre Report.

Frasier, Mary M. (1995). *Educators' perceptions of barriers to the
identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and
limited English proficient backgrounds and others*. National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs, CT. Sept. 1995. Sponsoring
Agency: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.
Contract No: R206R00001 Report No: RM-95216 ED402707 EC305215

Freire, P. (1970). *Pedagogy of the oppressed*. New York: Continuum.

Garrett, M. T. (Fall, 1996). "Two People": An American Indian narrative
of bicultural identity. *Journal of American Indian Education*, 36 (1).
pp. 1--21.

Goddard, J.T. (2002). Ethnoculturally relevant programming in northern
schools. *Canadian Journal of Native Education*, 26(2), pp. 124--133.

Goodwin, N. M. (1998). Aboriginal English in education. Project, Master
of Applied Linguistics.\
Online: www.ntu.edu.au/education/csle/student/goodwin/goodwin0.html

Guerrero, R. N. (1999). The strategies of successful American Indian and
Native learners in the adult higher education environment. In 40th
*Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings*, DeKalb,
Illinois, May 21--23, 1999, compiled by A. Rose. DeKalb: Northern
Illinois University, 1999. ERIC Publication (ED 431 901).

Haig-Brown, C. (1995). Taking control: Power and contradiction in First
Nations adult education. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. ERIC Publication (ED
391 627).

Halfe, L. (2004). Comments at Panel Presentation \"Saskatoon, Literally:
Our City through the Eyes of its Authors.\" Saskatoon Public Library.

Hart, M.A. (1996). Sharing Circles: Utilizing traditional practice
methods for teaching, helping, and supporting. In Sylvia O'Meara &
Douglas A. West. (Eds). *From our eyes: Learning from Indigenous
peoples.* Toronto, ON: Garamond Press.

Heit, M, & Blair, H. (1993). Language needs and characteristics of
Saskatchewan Indian and Metis students: Implications for educator". In
Sonia Morris, Keith McLeod & Marcel Danesi (Eds). *Aboriginal language
and education: The Canadian experience*. Oakville, ON: Mosaic Press, pp.
103--108.

Heugh, K., Siegrühn, A. (1995). Towards implementing multilingual
education in South Africa. K. Heugh and A. Siegrühn Plüddemann (Eds.)
*Multilingual education for South Africa*. pp. 91--99. Johannesburg:
Heinemann.

Hewitt, D. (2000). A clash of worldviews: Experiences from teaching
Aboriginal students. *Theory into Practice,* 39 (2). Spring, 2000.

LaBonte, R. and Feather, J. (1996). *Handbook on using stories in health
promotion practice.* Ottawa: Health Canada, 1996.

Leavitt, R. M. (1991). Language and cultural content in Native
education. *The Canadian Modern Language Review*, 47 (2).

Malcolm, I. G., Haig, Y., et al. (1999). *Two-way English: Towards more
user-friendly education for speakers of Aboriginal.* Perth: Edith Cowan
University and Education Department of Western Australia, SCIS No.
971073

Malcolm, I. G. (1995). Teacher development for bidialectal education.
Paper presented at an International Conference on Language in
Development. Bali, Indonesia, Aril 10--12, 1995. ERIC Publication (ED
390270).

McGroarty, M. (1998). *Partnerships with linguistic minority
communities.* Occasional Professional Paper #4. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Publications.

Orr, J. E. (2000). Linguistic perspectives on African American
vernacular English hand implications for the Language Arts classroom.
ERIC Publication (ED 458811).

Orr, J. A. (2000). Learning from Native Adult Education. In L. M.
English and M. A. Gillen (Eds.) *Addressing the Spiritual Dimensions of
Adult Learning: What Adult Educators Can Do, New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education*, No. 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp.
59--66

Pennycook, A. (1994). *The cultural politics of English as an
international language*. London: Longman.

Reyhner, J. (1996). Rationale and needs for stabilizing Indigenous
languages. G. Cantoni (Ed.) (1996). Stabilizing Indigenous Languages
Conference.\
Online: <http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/stabilize/i-needs/rationale.htm>

Rickford, J. R. (1998). Using the vernacular to teach the standard.
Presentation to the California State University Long Beach (CSULB)
Conference on Ebonics held on March 29, 1997.
Online:<http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/VernacularToTeachStandard.html>

Robb, H. (1995). Multilingual preschooling. K. Heugh and A. Siegrühn
Plüddemann (Eds.) *Multilingual education for South Africa*. Pp. 8--14.
Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Saskatchewan Education (1997, 1998, 1999). *Saskatchewan Education
Indicators---\
Kindergarten to Grade 12.* Regina, SK: Social Sciences Unit,
Saskatchewan Education.

Scott, J. C. (1993). Accommodating nonmainstream language in the
composition classroom. In Glowka, A Wayne & Donald M. Lance (Eds.)
*Language variation in North American English: Research and teaching*.
Pp.331--345. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic diversity, biodiversity and the
future of the planet. Presentation made to TESOL 2000, Vancouver, BC.

Smith, D. (1999). Educating inner-city Aboriginal students: The
significance of culturally appropriate instruction and parental support.
*McGill Journal of Education*. 34 (2). Spring 1999, pp.155--170.

Szasz, M. C. (1999). *Education and the American Indian: The Road to
self-determination since 1928.* 3rd Edition. Albuquerque, NM: University
of New Mexico Press.

Taras, J. P.S. (1996). Urban Aboriginal students and ESL. Teaching and
Learning: Research Exchange. Saskatoon, SK: Dr. Stirling McDowell
Foundation for Research into Teaching.

Toohey, K. (1985). English as a second language for native Canadians.
*Canadian Journal of Education*, 10 (3).

Wallerstein, N. (1982). *Language and culture in conflict: Problem
posing in the ESL classroom.* US: Addison Wesley.

White, L. O. (1996). Medicine wheel teaching in native language
education. In Sylvia O'Meara & Douglas A. West. (Eds.) *From our eyes:
Learning from Indigenous peoples*. Toronto, ON: Garamond Press.

Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T., & Christian, D. (1999). *Dialects in schools
and communities.* Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Yoeman, E. (2002). Aboriginal language learning in cyberspace: A
typology of language-related websites and their potential uses. *Journal
of Native Education*, 26(2), pp. 120--133.

Yurkovich, E. E. (2001). Working with American Indians toward
Educational Success. Journal of Nursing Education. 40 (6). September,
pp. 259--269.