Developmental Synthesis Cartwright FINAL

Running head: NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT1

Understanding Native American College Student Development: Making the Invisible Visible

Matthew Cartwright

Loyola University Chicago

NATIVE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT 2

As more Native American people choose to attend college, they are becoming an

important student population in need of attention and unique cultural support. From 1980 to

2010, Native American participation in higher education increased 129%, growing to a total of

179,000 students nationally (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). However,

while overall undergraduate enrollment increased, Native Americans continue to represent only

1% of total undergraduate enrollment (NCES, 2012). Due to their low representation on campus,

Native American students are an invisible population who is inadvertently overlooked by

universities (Collins, 2013; Klasky, 2013; Tierney, 1996). Additionally, little research on Native

American student development exists (Guardia & Evans, 2008), necessitating the need to bridge

theoretical development foundations with the unique cultural characteristics of this population.

Native American people’s history with education and its assimilative efforts (Kidwell,

1994; Tierney, 1996; Wright, 1991; Wright & Tierney, 1991) have left them apprehensive to

pursue a secondary education that is rooted in a normative, White ideology (Guillory &

Wolverton, 2008; Huffman, 1993; Lundberg, 2007). Native American students often struggle

with navigating two worlds on campus. They believe that to be academically successful they

must abandon their traditions and adopt the majority population’s values, beliefs, and behaviors

(Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 2001; Huffman, 1993; Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003; Montgomery,

Milville, Winterowd, Jeffries, & Baysden, 2000). Consequently, cultural incongruity contributes

to the 75% attrition rate of Native American students compared to the 44% rate for the general

population (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Jackson et al., 2003). Native American students,

the majority of whom are women, are frequently nontraditional students who enter higher

education at an older age with a family started, as a single parent, and possibly having

experienced extreme adversity (e.g., poverty, domestic abuse; Guardia & Evans, 2008;


Heavyrunner & DeCelles, 2002). Although the aforementioned barriers are substantial, many

Native American students have still succeeded in higher education by employing their cultural

heritage as a means to persist (Guillory & Wolverton, 2008; Montgomery et al., 2000).

Most Native American students attend college with some understanding of their cultural

identity (Huffman, 1993), yet it is still not fully formed, leaving higher education as a potential

catalyst to further development (Guardia & Evans, 2010). Native American students’ struggle

for success amidst the challenges they face on college campuses necessitates that this invisible

population become visible and that their developmental needs be considered. Attending college

allows Native American students, much like it does for other populations, to develop in myriad

ways (cognitively, interpersonally, and intrapersonally; Guardia & Evans, 2008). To facilitate

growth, it is imperative that student affairs practitioners understand and consider the unique

cultural needs of Native American students as they construct and implement developmental

programs. Therefore, this paper provides an overview of the cultural norms of Native

Americans, analyzes the developmental theories in relation to Native American culture,

summarize areas of further research, and outlines implications for practice.

Understanding Native American Culture

The aggregate term “Native American” captures people who identify as American Indian

(found in the contiguous United States), Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian (Brown &

Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Cajete, 2005; LaCounte, 1987; Lundberg, 2007; McClellan,

Tippeconnic Fox, & Lowe, 2005). While these terms alone demonstrate the diversity within the

Native American population, the subdivision of each group into 500 recognized tribes further

exemplifies the uniqueness inherent to the population (Oppelt, 1989). Generalization across

Native American people is cautioned, yet there exists a consensus regarding various cultural


attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, referred to as worldviews, that are frequently expressed by tribal

members (Evans et al., 2010; Guardia & Evans, 2008; Horse, 2001, 2005; Oppelt, 1989).

First, collectivism, a foundational worldview, includes values (sharing, cooperation,

family and tribal importance, and group dynamics) that are considerable aspects of cultural

orientation and that illustrate a dedication to community (Cajete, 2005; as cited in Guardia &

Evans, 2008; Oppelt, 1989; Sanders, 1987). This worldview entails that Native Americans do

not act on behalf of themselves but rather for the benefit of the group. A second worldview is

the consideration for others, which encompasses noninterference, respect, and harmony (as cited

in Guardia & Evans, 2008). Finally, a focus on present time and being versus doing encapsulate

Native Americans’ detachment from planning for the future and worrying about accomplishing

long term goals (as cited in Guardia & Evans, 2008; Oppelt, 1989; Sanders, 1987); this leads

Native Americans to concentrate on developing their inner spirit for today, not tomorrow.

Though Native Americans are thought to have seemingly acculturated, or at the very least

have learned to accommodate to the dominant society, their cultural worldviews are an intrinsic

part of their self-identity (Guardia & Evans, 2008; Horse, 2001, 2005; Oppelt, 1989). Garrett

(1996) suggested that bicultural Native American students might be more successful in college

given their ability to stay connected to their heritage while still adopting dominant customs.

Nonetheless, student affairs practitioners should expect White culture’s values of individuality

and competitiveness to conflict with the unique cultural characteristics of Native Americans as

students navigate the academy (Guardia & Evans, 2008; Horse, 2005). While in reality there are

numerous identities (e.g., gender, class, sexual orientation, culture) that interact and create

complexity as students develop holistically (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007; Holvino, 2012;

Jones, 2009), the unique cultural facets of Native Americans are at the core of their identity


(Weaver, 2001; Weaver & Brave Heart, 1999). It remains, therefore, essential to understand and

to apply Native Americans’ distinctive cultural norms when examining the applicability of

developmental theories, especially with the lack of substantive research and theoretical models

dedicated to this population.

Native American Soci-cultural Identity Development

Social identities are situated in time and place, are dynamic, and are influential in the

ways individuals perceive themselves and engage with others (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, &

Renn, 2010). Identity is social because of the ways “other people, as well as the individual

involved, evaluate a person and make judgments” about them(selves) based on socialized

characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, race, gender; Evans et al., 2010). Privilege and oppression

reinforce and promote social identity distinction and further instruct Native Americans about

how to make meaning of their identities in a White-dominated society (Evans et al., 2010; Horse,

2005). Intertwined with social identity are ethnic identity and racial identity, defined as having a

common origin/culture and sharing a similar racial heritage with a specific group, respectively

(as cited in Guardia & Evans, 2008). Race and ethnicity are inherently linked for Native

Americans. Native Americans are a cultural entity, as evidenced by their tribal affiliations and

worldviews, and a racialized group that experiences prejudice, racism, and oppression (Guardia

& Evans, 2008; Horse, 2001, 2005).

Native American identity is personal, dynamic, multifaceted, and constantly changing

over time (Guardia & Evans, 2008; Horse, 2005; Peroff, 1997; Weaver, 2001). Identity

development for Native Americans can be challenging due to the political status of Native

American nations, historical and contemporary oppression, and acculturation/assimilation

practices (Horse, 2001, 2005; Kramer, 1993; Weaver, 2001). Government/tribal/nonnative


entities further complicate identity development by regularly defining/redefining what it means

to be Native American (Garrett, 1996; Heavyrunner & DeCelles, 2002; Kramer, 1993; Mihesuah,

1998; Peroff, 1997; Weaver, 2001). Horse (2001, 2005) affirmed that Native Americans are in

the midst of a cultural struggle with dominant influences as they seek to preserve their traditional

ways, further claiming that at the center of Native American identity lie the cultures and

languages they long to uphold. He argued that identity begins with a connection to family and

the general Native American population, and a realization and consciousness that Native

Americans have when distinguishing themselves as “Kiowa, Navajo, Comanche, Apache,

Wichita, and so on down the list of five hundred or more Indian tribes” (p. 61). Horse (2005)

explained Native American consciousness as “the principles and moral values that guide an

individual’s actions” (p. 65), stating that it is influenced by the strength of connection to the

individuals’ native language and culture; how strongly they believe in traditional Native

American worldviews (e.g., old traditions); their concept of self as a Native American; the

legitimacy of their Native American genealogy; and their enrollment in a tribe. As Native

Americans come to process their identity in a racially stratified society, their cultural

consciousness is regularly called into question by the dominant population (Horse, 2005;

Weaver, 2001).

Many Native Americans adopt dominant norms alongside their cultural practices to

accommodate society’s expectations and influence, falling along a continuum of acculturation

(Garrett, 1996; Guardia & Evans, 2008; Horse, 2001, 2005). Acculturation is described as one’s

adoption of and adherence to dominant culture while surrendering one’s traditional beliefs and

behaviors (as cited in Garrett, 1996; as cited in Guardia & Evans, 2008). Noting the diversity

among Native American tribes and the resulting differences in commitment to culture and


tradition, LaFromboise, Trimble, and Mohatt (1990) identified four levels of acculturation:

traditional, marginal, bicultural, and assimilated. A marginal classification, or not committing to

one culture or the other, results in a higher likelihood of cultural conflict. However, the other

three levels include the ability to navigate a traditional or normative world, or a combination of

both (Garrett, 1996; Huffman, 1993; LaFromboise et al., 1990).

Native American students who succeed in college are able to preserve a strong sense of

cultural self and exhibit resilience while navigating two worlds (Drywater-Whitekiller, 2010;

Garrett, 1996; Huffman, 1991). Perseverance requires Native American students to incorporate

“traditional practices and ways of thinking as a means to overcome oppression and other

negative obstacles” (as cited in Drywater-Whitekiller, 2010, p. 2). This mastery of bicultural

worldviews resembles Phinney’s (1990) third stage of ethnic identity development. Within the

stage, students establish a bicultural identity that accepts racial and ethnic matters that

accompany a minority status (Evans et al., 2010). Garrett (1996) outlined a Native American

bicultural identity development model consisting of five stages (personal identity, choice,

denial/confusion, appreciation, and integration). Stage five (integration) describes biculturality

as a “wholeness and integration through a new and renewed sense of personal identity which

incorporates various cultural influences/expectations” (Garrett, 1996, Integration section, para.

1). In a similar racialized population, Latinos/as, Torres and Baxter Magolda (2004) found that

those students who developed a strong ethnic identity had more complexly rebuilt their identity

to increase their resistance to stereotypes. Torres’ (2003) Hispanic identity model established

ethnic identity influences that ostensibly apply to Native Americans given some cultural and

societal similarities: environment where they were raised, family influence and generational

status, and self-perception and status on society (Evans et al., 2010). For instance, family is core


to Native American identity, as is self-perception that is dictated by sociohistorical factors.

LaFromboise, et al. (1990) found that Native American students who had developed a positive

self-perception and cultural identity were more capable of appreciating White, dominant culture

without threat.

Though scant, literature exists that directly examines Native American student racial

identity development (Bryant, 1998; Bryant & Baker, 2003; Mihesuah, 1998; Watson, 2009),

further contextualizing the navigation of two worlds. As resolution between conflicting

worldviews is achieved, individuals progress to more complex stages of racial development

(Bryant & Baker, 2003). Mihesuah (1998) used a non-empirical approach to connect Native

American identity to Cross’s (1991) model of black identity development. Using sociohistorical

and cultural context, Mihesuah described the identity achievement of Native Americans along

multiple stages (conformity/pre-encounter, dissonance/encounter, immersion-emersion, and

internalization). For instance, Mihesuah posited that, akin to African Americans, Native

Americans experiencing conformity/pre-encounter (as when individuals conform to the White

majority culture) know little about their traditions, tribal history, or culture. Individuals

exhibiting pre-encounter characteristics are satisfied with their current status and do not attempt

to evolve their identity.

Helms’s (1995) People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (POCRIAS) has been

used to understand the racial identity attitudes of Native Americans and their developmental

position within the schemas (Bryant, 1998; Bryant & Baker, 2003; Watson, 2009). Watson

(2009) found that Native American students’ racial identity attitudes were predictors of their

ability to adjust to college. He found that dissonance, the confusion stemming from racial issues

coming to consciousness, and internalization were statuses that readily predicted college


adjustment. Watson (2009) asserted that “as students were able to successfully diffuse feelings

of anxiety and confusion about their racial identity… their personal-emotional adjustment

increased” and they possessed an evolved understanding of racial dynamics and were better able

to adjust to college (p. 132). However, the studies lacked diversity and scale, with the

participants representing only two tribal affiliations, Lumbee (Bryant, 1998; Bryant & Baker

2003) and Choctaw (Watson, 2009), making the results difficult to generalize. Further, none of

the research accounted for the varying levels of acculturation present among Native Americans.

How does racial development intersect with cultural and ethnic development, especially

considering Native Americans’ historical and contemporary positions in the U.S.? Having

political self-determination could require more apparent cultural loyalty in later racial schemas

that are often exhibited in earlier schemas; a healthy and stable Native American identity may

resemble something other than what Helms outlined. As a people struggling to preserve

centuries of traditions and worldviews, it is unlikely that Native Americans would be as flexible

with their racial identity at an integrative stage.

Native American identity development is clearly grounded in and substantially connected

to culture, tradition, and a collective consciousness of shared worldviews (Horse, 2001, 2005).

In spite of a lack of substantive research, understanding the cognitive and psychosocial

developmental processes of Native American students necessitates the use of a cultural lens

when referencing traditional theories and theoretical families that are based on White,

traditional-aged student populations (Arvizu, 1995; Evans, et al., 2010).

Culturally Constructed Cognitive Development

Ethnicity and cultural identity are interwoven with cognitive development (Torres, 2003).

Internal ethnic identity includes a cognitive dimension that “incorporates… individuals’ self-


images, images of the group, and knowledge of the group’s heritage and values” (Evans et al.,

2010, p. 275). Cognitive development theories study how students sequentially reason, mature

intellectually, and understand their experiences (Evans et al., 2010). As they are unable to fit

experiences within their current cognitive structure, students construct a more advanced,

complex one (as cited in Evans et al., 2010), thereby leading to cognitive development. Torres

and Hernandez’ (2007) work on Latino/a student cognitive dimension of self-authorship found

that students achieving higher order cognition (authoring one’s own life) recognized their

cultural reality. For Native American students, higher cognition might be the understanding of

their cultural reality in relation to White dominant society and other tribal members. However,

there has been little attempt to study the cognitive development of Native American students

(Guardia & Evans, 2008). Yet, the notion that environment and social interactions influence

cognitive development (Evans et al., 2010) applies to the population and its cultural connections.

Collectivism, as mentioned, is a customary belief among Native Americans. Coupled

with tribal and familial commitments are respect and admiration for elders and other authority

figures whose wisdom is valued (as cited in Guardia & Evans, 2008; Oppelt, 1989).

Additionally, Native American learning “[occurs] in a holistic social context” that teaches the

value of becoming a “contributing member of the social group” (Cajete, 2005, p. 69). Cognitive

theorists (e.g., Perry, 1981) contend that complex reasoning occurs as students question the

validity of authorities’ perspectives and advance toward the recognition that there are multiple

opinions and that points of view require substantiation, which is known as relativistic thinking

(Evans et al., 2010). The application of a cultural lens suggests that Native American beliefs

appear to possibly conflict with the supposed cognitive process purported by theorists. For

instance, Perry (1981) described dualism (thinking in absolute terms) as the simplest and most


unsophisticated position in cognitive development. However, should Native Americans be

classified as unsophisticated thinkers merely for valuing the wisdom of their elders and not

questioning their traditional expertise? As a nonassertive, noncompetitive people (Garrett &

Pichette, 2000; Guardia & Evans, 2008; Oppelt, 1989), Native Americans would be unlikely to

challenge their elders’ or leaders’, and by extension their tribe’s, authoritative knowledge.

Advancement along a cognitive continuum has application to understanding Native

American students’ development, as long as it is culturally tailored. Researchers contend that

developmental differences exist between Native Americans and White students, the population

on which most theories were based, primarily citing the differing influences associated with a

subculture’s values versus the dominant’s (Evans et al., 2010; Love & Guthrie, 1999b).

Therefore, perhaps a dualistic position for Native American students is expressed as a lack of

appreciation for elders, tribal leaders, or other traditional authorities. Similarly, demonstrating

relativistic thinking might manifest itself as an adoption, appreciation, or mastery of fundamental

values and beliefs (e.g., respect for authority, cooperation, noninterference). Further, higher

ordered cognition for Native Americans might occur as the community and the individual’s

community role become the primary context through which meaning is made.

Agreement between Native American culture and cognitive theory rests in the

significance of social interaction and relationships. Essential to cognitive theories is the

requirement of social engagement, often resulting in dissonance, for enhanced cognitive

development (Love & Guthrie, 1999a). For example, Perry’s (1981) model includes transitions

to new positions that are often initiated by social interactions and interpersonal relationships

(Love & Guthrie, 1999a). Baxter Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model is partially

based on the guiding assumption that “ways of knowing and patterns within them are socially


constructed” (p. 20). With a relational mindset and a cultural emphasis on sharing, it could be

assumed that Native Americans’ cognitive developmental process hinges upon interaction with

others. Lundberg (2007) found that Native American students learned better when they

collaborated, discussed ideas, integrated concepts, and fused several viewpoints. An accepting

environment and social world can foster the development of meaningful relationships (Lundberg,

2007), indicating that context matters in cognitive development that is contingent upon

interpersonal connections. However, Love and Guthrie (1999a) warned, “although interpersonal

interaction is vital to development, negative interpersonal interactions can slow or stunt cognitive

development” (p. 56). Native American students often encounter racism, racial bias, and hostile

campus environments (Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Evans et al., 2010; Jackson et al.,

2003; Larimore & McClellan, 2005), which could have a detrimental effect on their cognitive

development. A collaborative environment could help promote cognitive development, as long

as Native American students are welcome and racism is actively combated.

Moral development is empirically tied to cognitive development and is similarly

constructed based on cultural values and beliefs (Evans et al., 2010), signifying that Native

American moral development is likely at odds with White norms. Gilligan (1982) disagreed

with Kohlberg’s (1981) conclusion that women cannot achieve the same developmental pinnacle

as men (Evans et al., 2010). She proposed a developmental contrast between male and female

voices, delineating the two based on Kohlberg’s tenets of care and justice (Evans et al., 2010).

Gilligan observed that women’s moral compass centered on their relationships with others and

the theme of care (Evans et al., 2010). Arvizu (1995) identified the potential correlation between

Gilligan’s proposition and Native American’s interpersonal relationship (i.e., collectivism and

interdependence) worldview.


Arvizu (1995) found that Native Americans “may appear to be more ‘care’ oriented…

than the mainstream culture” (p. 12). She argued, however, that justice and care are intertwined

and are co-existing features of interdependence (Arvizu, 1995). Since Native Americans are a

communal population, their moral issues and identity development are not situated around the

individual but rather the interactions with the group (as cited in Arvizu, 1995). Thus, Arvizu

maintained that development involves finding one’s place among the group versus finding one’s

self.

Culturally Constructed Psychosocial Development

Similar to cognitive development, psychosocial development is influenced by cultural

and ethnic context, such as relationships with similar ethnic members and internal “feelings of

attachment to a particular ethnic group” (Evans et al., 2010). Psychosocial theories aid in

understanding how relationships with people, determining purpose in life, self-definition, and

environment impact individuals’ development throughout their lives (Evans et al., 2010). Evans

et al. (2010) noted that some researchers saw acculturation, assimilation to a dominant culture,

and cultural awareness as mediating factors in racial/ethnic student psychosocial development.

Pope (2000) found that racial identity development was related to psychosocial progression,

stating that the two were “equally important and concurrent developmental concerns for students

of color” (p. 308). The prominence of culture and acculturation in Native American identity can

aid in contextualizing psychosocial development theories in relation to the population.

For example, Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) theory of identity development provides

preliminary terminology and guidelines for understanding Native American psychosocial

development. Their sequential model, however, is not entirely relevant for Native Americans,

which is easily attributable to the theory’s being based on a nonrelated population – White,


middle class students. Chickering and Reisser separated interpersonal relationships and

interdependence from all of the other vectors, whereas for Native Americans the concepts would

be omnipresent throughout their entire developmental process. For instance, moving through

autonomy toward interdependence involves increasing independence and a freedom from

needing affirmation from others, while developing integrity involves the establishment of an

individualized and self-interested value system (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). However, Native

American culture places greater emphasis on community, cooperation, and respect for authority

(Guardia & Evans, 2008; Oppelt, 1989). Conceivably, if the vectors were reframed from a

cultural standpoint, they could address acculturation and how Native American students may

come to define their autonomy from and interdependence with the dominant population as well

as make sense of their values in relation to the majority. Otherwise, perhaps a vector

representing the combination of establishing identity and developing integrity could serve as a

pinnacle at which Native American students fully grasp the importance of community and their

role within it.

Similarly, Marcia’s (1966) ego identity status model prominently features how

individuals balance crisis and commitment in relation to the conflict between establishing

individual values and managing parental values (Evans et al., 2010). Marcia stated that identity

status is neither progressive nor permanent (Evans et al., 2010). Respect for authority and

deference for elders in the Native American community does not support Marcia’s model. In the

moratorium status, Marcia contended that “individuals actively question parental values in order

to form their identity” and “shift between indecisiveness and ambivalence toward authority”

(Evans et al., 2010, p. 53). Native Americans’ develop individually but in relation to the group

(i.e., parents), which differs from Marica’s notion that conflict must exist between the two for


development to occur. However, the crisis and commitment discussed in Marcia’s theory might

have applicability if they were framed from an acculturation perspective. To understand how

Native American students learn to balance their cultural beliefs with those of the mainstream and

come to define their relationship with the dominant culture, Marcia’s model could be adapted by

overlaying it with LaFromboise et al.’s (1990) acculturation levels. For example, Marcia’s

diffusion status resembles LaFrombois et al.’s marginal level in which Native Americans have

not committed to identifying with any particular culture. Though Marcia stated that the status’s

lack of commitment involves conformity (Evans et al, 2010), Native Americans within diffusion

would be unable to conform to any culture, essentially existing in limbo until a crisis occurs and

forces a commitment.

Torres and Baxter Magolda’s (2004) study on Latino/a students’ holistic development

provides applicable context to further understand how Native American students culturally

navigate psychosocial development. They found that ethnic identity (culture in the Native

American instance) was interwoven with the students’ interpersonal development. As students

encountered cultural oppression, they sought support in order to address the dissonance. For

Native Americans, as they experience cultural conflict, their tribal, community, and familial

support systems possibly take new shape, which in turn could redefine or reinforce how they

perceive the worldview of interdependence. The experiences of a related racialized, oppressed

group further illustrate how Native American cultural is inextricably linked to all facets of their

identity development.

Future Research and Implications for Practice

Aside from a handful of studies (e.g., Bryant & Baker, 2003), no substantial research has

been conducted on Native American student development (Guardia & Evans, 2008). Many


scholars (e.g., Weaver, 2001) have examined the indigenous identity of the population, providing

a cultural foundation from which to begin, as illustrated throughout this paper. However, there is

a lack of direct analysis and investigation pertaining to students. Guardia and Evans (2008),

using a cultural lens, identify sociocultural approaches (narrative, situated cognition,

emancipatory learning) from which to understand Native American student development, but

none have been tested empirically on the population. Further, Horse (2001, 2005) provided a

theoretical paradigm for Native American development by applying cultural context, yet its use

has not been studied.

With immense diversity within the Native American population, it will take time to

understand the complexities involved in navigating a White world. As culture is central to

Native Americans, it would behoove researchers to use a cultural perspective as they begin to

investigate students’ development. For example, the traditional practice of storytelling provides

ample opportunity to understand Native American students’ unique experiences and processes

(Garrett, 1996; Guardia & Evans, 2008). Huffman (1993) asserted that “it is unfortunate that

past studies have largely ignored the perceptions of Native Americans regarding their college

experience” but “[their] subjective perceptions… can shed much necessary light” (p. 79).

As university practitioners engage with Native American students, the populations’

cultural nuances and worldviews must always be considered. However, as mentioned, Native

American students cannot be treated as a collective, void of their own distinct tribal practices and

norms (Lowe, 2005; Weaver & Brave Heart, 1999). To support Native American students,

practitioners must acknowledge the populations’ historical and contemporary experiences with

oppression, assimilation, and acculturation (Garrett & Pichette, 2000; Weaver & Brave Heart,

1999). Tied to Native American experiences is an inherent distrust of the White majority


(Garrett & Pichette, 2000; Oppelt, 1989), requiring that practitioners be dutiful in establishing

trust and a welcoming, safe environment that promotes development.

As was recommended for researchers, practitioners too should rely on the tradition of

storytelling to engage students, to understand their developmental needs, and to acknowledge

their individual struggles of bridging two worlds (Guardia & Evans, 2008). Additionally, with

the importance and clear effect of family on Native Americans students, campus should be

portrayed as a familial and a cooperative community (Lowe, 2005). Finally, incorporating

culturally-relevant developmental opportunities can further support dimensions of students’

identity, as evidenced by Haskell Indian Nations University’s Vision Quest program (Kirkness &

Barnhardt, 1991; Martin, 2005). At Haskell, first-year students engage in an academic

experience modeled after a traditional Native American coming-of-age vision quest that supports

individual self-discovery and personal development (Martin, 2005). The Haskell model supports

students’ cultural identity while connecting them with a Native American mentor to guide their

developmental process (Martin, 2005). Though not perfect, until dedicated models are available,

blending Native American cultural norms with existing models, particularly those constructed to

respond to the multiple dimensions of identity (e.g., Abes, Jones, McEwen, 2007), can ensure

that a historically invisible population finally becomes visible and receives the developmental

support that they need.

References

Abes, E.S., Jones, S.R., & McEwen, M.K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple


dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of

multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48 (1), 1-22.

Arvizu, D.R. (1995). The care voice and American Indian college students: An alternative

perspective for student development professionals. Journal of American Indian

Education 34 (3), 1-17.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in

students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, L.L., & Robinson Kurpius, S.E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic

persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 38 (1), 3-12.

Bryant, A. (1998). A validation of Helms’People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale with a

Native American college student population (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 9825978)

Bryant Jr., A., & Baker, S.B. (2003). The feasibility of constructing profiles of Native Americans

from the People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale: A brief report. Measurement and

Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 2-8.

Cajete, G.A. (2005). American Indian epistemologies. New Directions for Student Services, 109,

69-78.

Chickering A.W., & Reisser L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Collins, R.K. (2013). Introduction: Reducing barriers to Native American student success in

higher education: Challenges and best practices. American Indian Culture and Research

Journal, 37 (3), ix-xvi.


Drywater-Whitekiller, V. (2010). Cultural resilience: Voices of Native American students in

college retention. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 30 (1), 1-19.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development

in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garrett, M.T. (1996). “Two people”: An American Indian narrative of bicultural identity.

Journal of American Indian Education, 36, 1-21.

Garrett, M.T., & Pichette, P.F. (2000). Red as an apple: Native American acculturation and

counseling with or without reservation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 3-

13.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gloria, A.M., & Robinson Kurpius, S.E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social support, and

comfort in the university environment on the academic nonpersistence decisions of

American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7

(1), 88-102.

Guardia, J.R., & Evans, N.J. (2008). Student development in tribal colleges and universities.

NASPA Journal, 45 (2), 237-264.

Guillory, R.M., & Wolverton, M. (2008). It’s about family: Native American student persistence

in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (1), 58-87.

Heavyrunner, I., & DeCelles, R. (2002). Family education model: Meeting the student retention

challenge. Journal of American Indian Education, 41 (2), 29-37.

Holvino, E. (2012). The “simultaneity” of identities: Models and skills for the Twenty-first


Century. In C.L. Wijeyesinghe & B.W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial

identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed.; pp. 161-191). New

York, NY: New York University Press.

Horse, P.G. (2001). Reflections on American Indian identity. In C.L. Wijeyesinghe & B.W.

Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity: A theoretical and practical

anthology (pp. 91-107). New York, NY: New York Press.

Horse, P.G. (2005). Native American identity. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 61-68.

Huffman, T.E. (1993). A typology of Native American college students. In T.E. Schirer & S.M.

Branstner (Eds.), Native American values: Survival and renewal (pp. 67-80). Sault Ste.

Marie, MI: Lake Superior State University Press.

Jackson, A.P., Smith, S.A., & Hill, C.L. (2003). Academic persistence among Native American

college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (4), 548-565.

Jones, S.R. (2009). Constructing identities at the intersections: An autoethnographic exploration

of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (3), 287-

304.

Kidwell, C.S. (1994). Higher education issues in Native American communities. In M.J. Justiz,

R. Wilson, & L.G. Björk (Eds.), Minorities in higher education (pp.239-257). Phoenix,

AZ: The Oryx Press.

Kirkness, V.J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four r’s –

respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30

(3), 1-15.

Klasky, P.M. (2013). Making it Real: An engaged approach for Native American students in

higher education. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 37 (3), 97-106.


Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. I. The philosophy of moral

development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kramer, J.M. (1993). The politics of “Indian” identity in Canada and the United States. In T.E.

Schirer & S.M. Branstner (Eds.), Native American values: Survival and renewal (pp.

245-264). Sault Ste. Marie, MI: Lake Superior State University Press.

LaCounte, D.W. (1987). American Indian students in college. New Directions for Student

Services, 38, 65-79.

LaFromboise, T. D., Trimble, J. E., & Mohatt, G. V. (1990). Counseling intervention and

American Indian tradition: An integrative approach. The Counseling Psychologist, 18 (4),

628-654.

Larimore, J.A., & McClellan, G.S. (2005). Native American student retention in U.S.

postsecondary education. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 17-31.

Lowe, S.C. (2005). This is who I am: Experience of Native American students. New Directions

for Student Services, 109, 33-40.

Love, P.G., & Guthrie, V.L. (1999a). Interpersonal, cultural, and emotional influences on

cognitive development. New Directions for Student Services, 88, 53-63.

Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999b). Synthesis, assessment, and application. New Directions for

Student Services, 88, 77-93.

Lundberg, C.A. (2007). Study involvement and institutional commitment to diversity as

predictors of Native American student learning. Journal of College Student Development,

48 (4), 405-417.

Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.


Martin, R.M. (2005). Serving American Indian students in tribal colleges: Lessons for

mainstream colleges. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 79-86.

McClellan, G., Tippeconnic Fox, M. J., & Lowe, S. (2005). Where we have been: A history of

Native American higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 7-15.

Mihesuah, D.A. (1998). American Indian identities: Issues of individual choices and

development. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 22 (2), 193-226.

Montgomery, D., Miville, M.L., Winterowd, C., Jeffries, B., & Baysden, M.F. (2000). American

Indian college students: An exploration into resiliency factors revealed through personal

stories. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6 (4), 387-398.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The condition of education. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hep.asp

Oppelt, N.T. (1989). Cultural values and behaviors common among tribal American Indians: A

resource for student service administrators. NASPA Journal, 26 (3), 167-174.

Peroff, N.C. (1997). Indian identity. Social Science journal, 34 (4), 485-494.

Perry, W.G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chickering,

& Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

Pope, R.L. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of

college students of color. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (3), 302-312.

Sanders, D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: An important factor in the academic failure of American

Indian students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 15, 81-90.


Tierney, W.G. (1996). The college experience of Native Americans: A critical analysis. In

C.S.V. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. Renón (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in

higher education (pp. 302-311). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Torres, V. (2003). Influences on ethnic identity development of Latino college students in the

first two years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 285-298.

Torres, V., & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2004). Reconstructing Latino identity: The influence of

cognitive development on the ethnic identity process of Latino students. Journal of

College Student Development, 45, 333-347.

Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2007). The influence of ethnic identity on self-authorship: A

longitudinal study of Latino/a college students. Journal of College Student Development,

48 (5), 558-573.

Watson, J.C. (2009). Native American racial identity development and college adjustment at

two-year institutions. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 125-136.

Weaver, H.N. (2001). Indigenous identity: What is it, and who really has it? American Indian

Quarterly, 25 (2), 240-255.

Weaver, H. N., & Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (1999). Examining two facets of American Indian

identity: Exposure to other cultures and the influence of historical trauma. Journal of

Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2 (1-2), 19-33.

Wright, B. (1991). American Indian and Alaska Native higher education: Toward a new century

of academic achievement and cultural integrity. Indian Nations at Risk Task Force

Commissioned Papers, 1-16.

Wright, B., & Tierney, W. (1991). American Indians in higher education: A history of cultural

conflict. Change, 23 (2), 11-18.


Documents

Developmental Synthesis Cartwright FINAL