THE IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS ON THE UNDER

REPRESENTATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS IN

GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS

A Thesis by

J. Kathryn Schreiner

B. S., University of Missouri, Columbia, 2010

Submitted to the Department of Counseling, Educational and School Psychology

and the faculty of the Graduate School of

Wichita State University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education

May 2010
© Copyright 2010 by J. Kathryn Schreiner

All Rights Reserved

ii
THE IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS ON THE UNDER
REPRESENTATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS IN
GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this Thesis for
form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Education with a major in Educational
Psychology.

__________________________________________
Linda Bakken, Committee Chair

__________________________________________
Marlene Schommer-Aikens, Committee Member

__________________________________________
Gwendolyn Mukes, Committee Member

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply grateful to my husband and family who have shown me great love and

encouragement while I worked on this project. Thank you for all the time, energy and

patience you have shown while I worked to finish this degree. Thank you to Dr. Linda

Bakken, my thesis chair, for her incredible ability to encourage and lead, and most of all

for the knowledge and wisdom she brought to the entire process. Thank you also to Dr.

Marlene Schommer-Aikens for her vast knowledge of statistics and her amazing ability to

make it even somewhat understandable to the lowly grad student. Thanks to Dr.

Gwendolyn Mukes for getting the ball rolling on this research and for all your great ideas

and input. I had an amazing time working with each of you.

iv
 ABSTRACT

This research studied the potential impact of teachers’ attitudes and perceptions on the

under representation of African American students in gifted education programs. The

study was conducted in an urban, Midwest school district with 322 elementary school

teachers participating. Results indicated that, in general, teachers perceive that African

American learners have a more difficult time learning than do students from other ethnic

groups. The mean score for White teachers was significantly higher than the mean scores

for Minorities. Results also indicated that, in general, teachers perceive that, although

African American learners are served at a higher rate than White students in special

education programs, they are not misidentified, and thus belong in those programs when

they are placed there. The mean scores of Minority teachers, teachers over the age of 35,

and teachers who had taught more than 15 years were significantly lower, although their

scores still indicated a general agreement with the idea that they are not misidentified.

The final significant finding was that younger teachers (22 – 35 years of age) felt that

they have had more adequate training in how to teach students from different cultural

backgrounds. This did not, however, seem to make any difference in their attitudes

toward African American learners’ ability to learn or misidentification.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

INTRODUCTION
The Problem 1
Definitions 3
Overview 4

LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on Causes 5
Theoretical Perspective 8
Teacher Attitudes and Behavior 12
Summary 15
Research Questions 18

METHODOLOGY
Sample 20
Instrument 20
Procedure 21

RESULTS
Psychometric Analyses 22
Analysis Addressing Research Questions 23
Descriptive Statistics 24
Multivariate Analysis of Variance 25

DISCUSSION
Theoretical Implications 30
Limitations 32
Recommendations for Future Research 33

REFERENCES 34

APPENDICES
A. Consent Form 39
B. Survey 40
C. Psychometric Analyses 43

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Numbers, Means and Standard Deviations of Each Factor for 25

Each Demographic Variable

2. MANOVA for Age and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, 26

and Adequate Training

3. MANOVA for Ethnicity and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, 27

and Adequate Training

4. MANOVA for Years Taught and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, 27

and Adequate Training

5. MANOVA for Gender and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, 28

and Adequate Training

vii
 Chapter 1

The Problem

The under representation of African American students in gifted programs is a

very real issue in American schools. It is also an issue that is not openly discussed very

often. Educators and researchers may look at the achievement gap, which is a serious

problem in and of itself; however, the fact that African American students are over

represented in special education and under represented in gifted programs is a problem

that can no longer continue to be overlooked (Ford, Grantham & Whiting, 2008; Smith &

Kozleski, 2005; Suinn & Borrayo, 2008).

The problem of under representation of African Americans in gifted education

programs could have many roots. According to some researchers it may not be as

socially acceptable to be gifted in the Black community (Ford, Grantham & Whiting,

2008; Ogbu, 2004). It could be that current recommendation and testing practices are not

sufficient to identify giftedness in African Americans (Suinn & Borrayo, 2008; Williams,

2007). Or could it be that teachers themselves are not willing or able to see past their

own perceptions to see the qualities of giftedness in their African American students.

There has been considerable research over the years concerning how to help

minority students be more successful in school, or how to close the achievement gap

(Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Suinn & Borrayo, 2008). There has also been

research on the over-representation of minority students recommended for, and placed, in

special education. Smith and Kozleski (2005; cited in Boone & King-Berry, 2007) found

that “African American students comprise 16% of school enrollment, but more than 21%

of total special education enrollment and more than 31% and 23% of students classified

1
as having mild mental retardation, and emotional disturbance, respectively” (p 7). Other

researchers (e.g., Oswald & Coutinho, 2006) found that Black students are almost one

and half times more likely than White students to be labeled with a disability (Boone &

King-Berry, 2007). Finally, to put this all in perspective, according to the US

Department of Education (2005; cited in Boone and King-Berry, 2007), “compared to

White peers, Black students are 3.04 times more likely to receive special education and

related services for mental retardation and 2.25 times more likely to receive special

education and related services for serious emotional disturbance than ALL other

racial/ethnic groups COMBINED” (Boone and King-Berry, 2007, 7).

Williams (2007) interviewed African American parents about the issue of over

representation in special education and found several interesting perceptions. Some

parents felt that African American students are unfairly put in special education because

teachers do not understand the culture of the students. Another participant in the study

said that psychologists who evaluate the students also do not understand the cultural

background of children of color, and thus are more likely to recommend placement in

special education. Another participant said that she felt placements were determined

unilaterally, where a teacher simply calls parents and tells them they need to sign some

forms, even though the parents may not really understand what they are signing. And

one final concern was that because teachers have such pressure for their students to

perform well on state-mandated examinations, they are more likely to want to remove

these different students from their testing pool.

The purpose of this research is to see if teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and

subsequent behaviors impact the under representation of African American students. This

2
study will focus on looking at teachers’ perceptions of African American students, their

awareness of traditional and alternative assessment tool for African American learners,

and their involvement in staff development that may help in identifying African

American learners for gifted programs.

Definitions

Attitudes can be defined as being formed when an individual comes to believe that

an item or a person possess desirable or undesirable traits or that they will bring about

desired or undesired outcomes (Fazio & Olson, 2003).

Perception is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary (1976) as an

impression in the mind of something discerned by the senses.

Stereotyping is a process of impression formation which begins with the

observation of a target person by the social perceiver. This observation leads to the

identification and categorization of the target’s behavior. Through a process of

attribution, this behavior categorization leads to a characterization or inference about the

actor, and these inferences may or may not be moderated by a process of correction in

which the perceiver considers other (perhaps situational) factors that might have

produced the behavior (Quinn, Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2003, p 68).

Prejudice is related to stereotyping. Prejudice is taking a stereotype and basing

one’s actions on the stereotype. For example, if a person were only described by a

female name, the stereotypes associated with being female can impact the perceiver’s

impression of that person, before they even meet. As it relates to this study, a teacher

knowing a student’s ethnicity could cause them to form certain prejudgments before even

meeting them (Quinn, Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2003).

3
 Gifted Education is a program designed to educate students who are gifted.

Gifted is defined by the state of Kansas as performing or demonstrating the potential for

performing at significantly higher levels of accomplishment in one or more academic

fields due to intellectual ability, when compared to others of similar age (Kansas

Department of Education, 2010).

Special Education is a program designed to educate students with any of several

specific learning disabilities, health related disabilities or mental retardation. It must be

shown through screening results, review of student records, interviews with parents,

student and teachers, observation of the student, and aptitude and achievement tests that a

student has an exceptionality. A student cannot qualify for special education services if it

is determined that the sole reason for their learning deficit is due to lack of instruction in

reading or math or limited English proficiency (Kansas Department of Education, 2001).

Overview

Chapter two will discuss the background of the achievement gap, the over

representation of African American students in special education and under

representation in gifted education. It will also look at possible theoretical reasons and the

connection between education and these theoretical reasons. Chapter 3 will discuss the

method used to compile data, the sample of individuals, and the instruments and

procedures. Chapter 4 includes the analysis of the data and Chapter 5 answers the

question, “So what?”

4
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

The literature review will address research on the possible causes for the under

representation of African American students in gifted education. It will also address

theoretical perspectives surrounding attitudes, perceptions and behaviors. Finally, it will

look at research about how teachers’ own attitudes and behaviors can affect the

educational outcome of their students.

There has been a lot of research on the under representation of African American

students in special education (Boone and King-Berry, 2007; Williams, 2007; Ford,

Grantham & Whiting, 2008). There has not been as much research on the under-

representation of minority students in gifted education. Although this problem pervades

many minority groups, this research will focus on African Americans. African American

students compose 17.2% of school districts; however, they represent only 8.4% of those

identified as gifted according to the United States Department of Education (2002; cited

in Ford, et al, 2008). No Child Left Behind called for educational reform and called for

the implementation of many intervention and prevention programs, but the achievement

gap and under-representation of minority students in gifted programs persists (Ford, et al,

2008).

Research on Causes

Why do these problems still persist? The literature that is available on this subject

provides several reasons. First, the instruments used to measure the aptitude and

performance of ethnic minorities are not used accurately. Many instruments are not

normed for ethnic minority populations (Suinn & Borrayo, 2008). Second, Barton (2003;

5
cited in Ford, et al, 2008) found 14 factors in two categories that were said to be strongly

associated with the achievement gap.

The school influences included lack of rigor in curricula in schools serving

Black students, less access to technology-assisted instruction, having less

qualified teachers, having less experienced teachers, and lower levels of

feeling safe in school. Some of the before and after-school influences

were defined as factors in the home or community, including less family

participation, lower levels of parental availability to their children, lower

rates of parents reading to their children, and more frequent TV watching

by Black children. (p 217)

Ford, et al (2008) also looked at four theories that might help explain the

achievement gap. One is the attitude-achievement paradox (Ford, 1996; Ford & Harris,

1996). Simply stated, most people in the United States believe that if you work hard you

will be successful. For many young Black people, although they may say they believe

this, their performance does not support their verbal expressions, thus creating the

paradox. They may believe in the statement that hard work leads to success, but possibly

their life experiences have shown them (that what may be true for most people) will not

be true for them. Thus they may feel why put out the effort, just to be disappointed.

Ford (2008) suggested, secondly, that because African Americans were

involuntary immigrants (slaves forcibly brought over to the United States) there is a

propensity to resist assimilation to the dominant culture and to adopt an attitude of

resistance (Ogbu, 2004). This is referred to as secondary resistance and shows itself by

the minority group putting a low priority on the oppressor group’s values and beliefs.

6
Therefore, since mainstream White America places a high value on succeeding in school,

it is possible that secondary resistance leads to some of the achievement gap.

A third theory put forth by Ford (2008) relates to peer pressure, specifically the

pressure put on Black students to not act White (Ogbu, 2004). The findings she stated

found that “acting White” includes “getting good grades, being intelligent, speaking

standard English, dressing in certain ways, having White friends, and other attitudes and

behaviors. Many Black students are looked down upon if they “act White” and thus they

do not attempt to take full advantage of the academic programs made available to them,

including gifted education. “The desire to have friends and to be popular, as well as to

avoid alienation, isolation and rejection, plays a critical role in the decisions gifted Black

students make relative to staying success oriented and academically focused” (Ford, et al,

2008, p 223).

A final theory from this article by Ford (2008) is that of stereotype threat (Steele,

1999). “Stereotype threat is the threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative

stereotype and the associated fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm

that stereotype” (Ford, et al, 2008, p 223). Because there are negative stereotypes about

Blacks pertaining to achievement and intelligence, and because many Blacks internalize

these negative stereotypes, they will perform more poorly on achievement and

intelligence tests than White students, even if their ability level is comparable to theirs.

In Williams’ (2007) study, one participant stated that she felt that many teachers

in the education system are not aware of the cultural differences of African American

students. This is a concern that should be taken seriously. An article in the New York

Times stated that 75% of all teachers are female (Simons, 2005). The US Department of

7
Education states that 86% of all elementary and secondary teachers are European

American whereas only 7%, in 1998, were African American. According to the National

Center for Educational Statistics (2007), in the 2005-2006 school year, 57.1% of the

overall US student population was White and 17.2% was African American. The

percentage of White teachers to White students is much more even than when the

percentage of African American teachers is compared to that of African American

students.

Theoretical Perspective

Why is it so important to consider the ratio of White teachers to Black students?

Does it really matter if teachers are different than their students? This researcher would

argue that the issue of in-group and out-group dynamics addresses this phenomenon. In

the field of social psychology there is a notion that individuals identify with groups for a

variety of reasons. In any setting there will be in-groups and out-groups (Hogg &

Abrams, 2003; Wright & Taylor, 2003). In the educational setting, the White female

teachers would be considered the in-group, because they make up the majority. The

Black students would be considered one of the out-groups. When this happens, the in-

group can wield a lot of power over the out-group. This is important because people are

generally motivated to maintain a positive self-view and similarly want to see the groups

that they belong to favorably. However, there is evidence that, in order to maintain a

positive view of one’s own group, an individual will maximize the positives about their

group, creating in-group favoritism. Beyond doing this, a person will not only minimize

positives about out-group members, but will even maximize what they see as apparent

faults or weaknesses (Goethals, 2003).

8
 This is important to look at in the light of under representation of Black students

in gifted education; because the in-group has such power, it is important to look at what

their perceptions of these Black students are. This is critical because perceptions impact

attitudes, which in turn impact behavior. The behavior of teachers that could be impacted

is their ability or willingness to see exceptional, gifted qualities in their Black students.

In order to talk about in-group and out-group relations there are some terms that

must first be defined. Perceptions are known as stereotypes. According to Wright and

Taylor (2003) stereotypes are “beliefs, shared by the members of one group, about the

shared characteristics of another group” (Wright & Taylor, 2003, 362). Attitudes are

described as prejudice. According to the same authors, prejudice is a socially shared

judgment or evaluation of a group, including the feelings associated with that judgment.

Stereotyping and prejudice play a major role in understanding the complex

interrelationships between in-groups and out-groups and, more specifically, as discussed

here, the interrelationship between mainly White female teachers and the out-group of

African American students. “Stereotyping and prejudice involve a dehumanized view of

the other; members of the target group are not seen as individuals, but as representations

of the category” (Wright and Taylor, 2003, 363). According to several studies cited in an

article by Wright and Taylor, there is a connection between the relationship between

groups and the perception of having similar traits, values, attitudes. When the relations

are harmonious, the in-group is more likely to see the out-group in a more compatible

way; and when there is conflict and/or strain between the groups, then the view of the

out-group is decidedly more negative. This is important because it shows that external

experiences can impact internal feelings and perceptions. And these perceptions can

9
impact the in-group’s attitude toward an out-group and thus, how the in-group behaves

toward the out-group. According to Wright and Taylor (2003) inter group attitudes serve

not only to clearly define the position of groups in society, but also to justify that

placement and the treatment that goes along with that status. When people attribute

laziness, stupidity, or evil to low-status groups, it not only serves to explain their low

position, but also helps to justify their continued poor treatment.

An attitude is formed when an individual comes to believe that an item or a

person possesses desirable or undesirable traits or that they will bring about desired or

undesired outcomes (Fazio & Olson, 2003). There are many different avenues through

which attitudes can be formed. Some attitudes are formed because of some emotional

response to an attitude object. An example of this might be a person who once was

bullied by another student who happened to be African American. Because of the

emotional pain that caused, a person may have a negative emotional reaction to other

African Americans, especially if they are overbearing or pushy. Some attitudes are

formed just by mere exposure to an attitude object. If a person has been exposed to

something, even just by seeing it briefly, they tend to show at least a slight preference for

it. An example from education could very simply be that if the prevalent culture

represented is White, it may automatically be preferred over other cultures. And

sometimes attitudes can be impacted by the influence of external things; for example, a

person may have an intrinsically motivated positive attitude toward an object, but when

the behavior motivated by this positive attitude is rewarded externally, the intrinsically

positive attitude decreases (Fazio & Olson, 2003). This can be seen in a classroom where

token reward systems are overly used. If a student already loves reading, but is

10
constantly told that if they read they will get some type of reward, they may actually stop

reading as much.

The Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants of the attitude-behavior relation

(MODE) model gives some understanding of how and when attitudes will impact

behaviors (Fazio & Olson, 2003). Basically, this model posits that when an individual

has the motivation or energy and enough time to give to making a decision, he will make

a thorough consideration of all the facts and not default to attitudes in order to make a

decision about something. However, when a person is not motivated and/or does not

have energy, desire, or time to devote to the decision making process, that person will

default to attitudes to guide behavior. A simplified example might be if a person who is a

wonderful teacher, is single, with no children, and devotes much of her spare time outside

of school to planning lessons and learning ways to best meet the various needs of all the

students in her classroom. She gives time and attention to the strengths and weaknesses

of all her students and works hard to see each child as an individual. Then she gets

married and has a child with a serious medical condition that takes a lot of her time and

energy. At this point, although she is still the same great teacher, she will be more likely

to default to her attitudes to help guide decisions about her students. She may not have

the time or the energy (or motivation and opportunity) to give to the decisions teachers

are asked to make on a daily basis. Her motivation and opportunity is decreased and

therefore she defaults to what is comfortable to her. This may result in her not taking the

time to see exceptional qualities in a student that may show those qualities in an unusual

way.

11
 This MODE model relates very well to the public school setting. Teachers are

often overwhelmed, over-worked, exhausted, and given limited time to make decisions

about what to do to help kids learn. Given these facts, it is no wonder that teachers

default to what they know. And since most American teachers are White females, their

attitudes and beliefs are often guided by their own limited exposure to the out-group, the

African American students.

Teacher Attitudes and Behavior

Up to this point the focus of this paper has been on general theories of social

psychology relating to attitudes and their potential impact on behavior. Now it is time to

make the connection between these general ideas and the specific context of how

teachers’ attitudes and perceptions may impact their behavior toward their students.

As stated previously, teachers wield a lot of power in the classroom (Hinnant,

O’Brien, & Ghazarian, 2009). They have the power to encourage or to devastate, to

empower or to weaken, to elevate or to deflate. How a teacher feels toward her students

can have impact on how she treats her students and ultimately impact their future success

or failure (Begeny, Eckert, Montarello & Storie, 2008; Hinnant, O'Brien & Ghazarian,

2009; Ladd & Linderholm, 2008; MkKown & Weinstein, 2008). In a study looking at

teacher perceptions of reading ability (Begeny, Eckert, Montarello & Storie, 2008), the

writers cited a study by Hoge and Coladarci (1989) which synthesized the results of 16

empirical studies conducted from 1971 – 1988, and found that there was a moderate to

strong association between teacher judgments and student achievement. Begeny and

colleagues pointed out that teacher judgments can have long-term effects because they

are used to make educational decisions about academic opportunities. Teacher judgments

12
are often cited in decisions related to the administration of gifted or special education

services.

Another study looked at the long-term impact of teacher expectations on

achievement in the early school years (Hinnant, O'Brien & Ghazarian, 2009). They

specifically addressed the domains of math and reading for young children (first, third

and fifth grades). They hypothesized that among other things, teachers underestimate the

academic abilities of minority children and those from low-income families. In this study

they found that teacher expectations had no significant impact on student performance in

reading 2 years later or 4 years later. However, they found that teacher expectations in

first grade math did show a significant impact on student performance in third and fifth

grades. When a teacher had a more negative view of a child’s performance than the

child’s actual math performance warranted, the child tended to perform less well in later

years. Visa versa; if the teacher had a more positive view of a child’s math performance

than the child’s actual math performance warranted, the child’s future math performance

tended to be better in the future years. These finding were slightly mediated by the

child’s family income. For children from families with average or low income, teacher

expectations were shown to have a significant impact on future math performance.

In yet another study by Ladd and Linderholm (2008), participants were asked to

watch a video of children in a classroom setting. The video was the same for each

participant, but some participants were told that the school shown in the video had been

rated as an “A”, “F”, or “typical” school, based on the school’s overall student

performance on achievement tests. What the researchers found was that when

participants thought they were viewing an “F” school they claimed to see more and

13
recalled more negative behaviors by the children than the participants who believed they

were viewing a “typical” school. They also tended to point out fewer positive behaviors.

They concluded that the automatic attitude activation effect was successfully applied in

the educational environment of their study.

The importance of this study is that it shows that when a person is primed to see

one thing, they are more likely to see it. When it comes to teacher expectations, teachers

who may have a less than positive view of certain-groups of students may be more likely

to see only what they expect to see. Since they are expecting to see lower performance on

tests, or less than enthusiastic involvement in the classroom, that is all they see. On top

of this, they tend to not see the positive aspects of these students’ actions in the

classroom.

One study by McKown and Weinstein (2008) looked at teacher expectations and

the classroom context and how they related to the achievement gap. They found that

teacher expectations are more closely linked to the achievement of African American

students than they are to the achievement of European American students. They also

found that there continues to be a lower expectation for African American and Latino

students and higher expectations for European American and Asian American students.

Kuklinski and Weinstein (2000; cited in McKown & Weinstein, 2008), found that

teachers who treat high and low achieving students very differently have a tendency to

hold more stable and rigid expectations for all students. They are not as willing to see

individual differences in students and judge students on things like ethnicity or social

class. Their research found that there was a .75 standard deviation discrepancy between

teacher expectations toward Black and Latino students and White and Asian-American

14
students. They showed that teachers tended to rate Black and Latino students who had

average prior achievement just below “low average” (1.9, with 2.0 being Low Average)

and White and Asian students with average prior achievement at just about average (2.8,

with a 3 being average). These finding were found to be statistically significant. The

final area this study addressed was what impact the teacher expectations have on the

year-end achievement of the students. In high-bias classrooms, teacher expectations are

found to account for .21 to .38 standard deviation discrepancy of year-end achievement

between stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups, with the average effect size

being d = .29. This means that in classrooms where the teacher may have rigid, long-

standing expectations for students based on the students’ ethnicities, there could be

negative impacts on the stereotyped group even by the end of that school year. Imagine

if this happened multiple years for a student. The impact of these negative expectations

on a student with prior average achievement could be quite detrimental.

Summary

Research has shown that African American students are under-represented in

gifted education programs and they are over-represented in special education programs.

Parents of African American students feel that some possible reasons for this is that

teachers, school psychologists and other school personnel do not understand the culture

of these students. They also feel that sometimes teachers are making unilateral decisions

without, especially without input from parents. And finally, some parents feel that

teachers may be motivated to remove these “different” kids from their classrooms in

order to clarify their testing pool for government mandated testing.

15
 These problems may persist for many possible reasons. One reason may be that

psychological testing used to determine qualification for special programs may not be

used accurately or appropriately on minority students. Also, schools that serve Black

students may lack rigor, may have less access to technology, may have less

qualified/experienced teachers and the students may have lower levels of feeling safe.

Some factors outside of school may be less family participation, lower levels of parent

availability, lower rates of parents reading to children, and more frequent television

watching by African American students.

Some other possible reason for the achievement gap may be that African

American students just don’t feel that it is possible for them to be successful. They know

that it is possible for some people, but they don’t feel that it is personally going to happen

for them, and therefore don’t put out the effort to be and do the best they can. They may

also be resistant to those things that are considered highly valued by White people, such

as education. There may be pressure to not act White and finally these students may have

heard stereotypes about themselves for so long that they begin to believe it themselves, or

become so anxious about inadvertently confirming the stereotype that they impair their

own performance.

As we look at this problem from the social psychology perspective one must

consider that most teachers in American schools are White, female (65.1%) with only 7%

being African American. The African American population of students is 17.2%. In this

sense, there is a definite feeling on in-groups and out-groups. The in-group, in this case

the White, female teachers, wield a lot of power and play a major role in deciding who

has access to gifted education programs. Their attitudes and beliefs about students may

16
play a vital role in the future success of their students. Experiences of teachers can

impact their feelings and perceptions and this can impact their behavior toward their

students. It has been shown that attributing negative attributes to a low-status group (in

this case, African American students) helps explain why they are disadvantaged and may,

in the mind of the high-status individual, justify their continued victimization. Basically,

the idea that “they” have brought this on themselves and there is not much we can do

about it.

Attitudes can be formed in various ways. They can be formed through negative

prior experiences, through mere exposure or because of other external factors. One

model states that attitudes impact behavior when there is not the motivation and/or the

opportunity to take the time to look past our attitudes and see each situation as unique and

deserving of special attention. Unfortunately, many teachers find themselves in

situations where they have too many students, too many responsibilities and not enough

time to devote to all the decisions that must be made. Therefore, they default to what

they know (or think they know) and may often make decisions that are not based on the

attributes on a specific student, but on the prejudices they may have about whatever

group that student may be a part of.

Research has found that teacher judgments can have a long-term effect on student

achievement. These judgments are often used to make decisions about the access a

student will have to special services (e.g., special education or gifted education). One

study found that teachers tend to underestimate the ability of minority and low-income

children. Another study showed that if teachers thought they were watching kids on a

video who were from a low-achieving school, they recalled more negative behaviors and

17
pointed our fewer positive behaviors than when teachers watched the same video but

were told that the kids were in an average-achieving school. This shows that when

teachers are primed to see negative, they are more likely to see it. And if a teacher

already has lower expectations for African American students, they will be more likely to

see the negatives and less likely to see the qualities of giftedness that may be present.

What is even more powerful is that it has been found that teachers’ expectations

are more closely linked to the achievement of African American students than to that of

European American students. However, teachers in this study rated European and Asian

American students as higher than average and African and Latino American students as

lower than low average, even though their actual abilities were comparable.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to address why African American students appear to

be under-represented in gifted programs. It will utilize the social psychological

perspective that perceptions (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) affect teacher

behavior. This study will focus on five questions:

1. What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of African American learners?

2. What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of African American students

recommended for special education placement?

3. What are elementary teachers’ awareness of traditional assessment tools used

to place children in their school district’s gifted education and special

education programs?

18
4. What are elementary teachers’ awareness of alternative assessment tools used

to place African American learners in their school district’s gifted education

programs?

5. Do elementary school teachers participate in staff development classes offered

to assist teachers in correctly identifying African American learners for gifted

and special education placement?

19
 Chapter 3

Methods

The study was conducted in an urban Midwest school district of which the

African American population is approximately 11%. In the public school district, there

are 49,000 students; of these, 10,909 (22%) are African American and 22, 010 (45%) are

White. Twenty-one elementary schools that receive Title I funds and have a minimum of

75% of their students who are eligible for free and reduced-cost meals were selected for

the study. These particular schools were chosen from this district because they represent

a majority of ethnic minority and poor students and the ethnic classification of teachers

were proportionate to that of the district.

Sample

Participants were teachers from 21 schools. Out of 461 possible participants,

there were 322 teachers (301 females, 21 males) who participated in the study. This is a

70% participation rate. The ethnic diversity reflected by the surveys did not exactly

reflect that of the school district, which has approximately 10% being from ethnic

minority groups. The ethnic diversity in this study was approximately 80% White and

20% Minority groups. The ethnic backgrounds represented included African American,

Asian American, Hispanic, Native American and White. Ages ranged from 22 – 62

years. Number of years teaching ranged from 1 – 35. Educational levels ranged from

Bachelor’s degree to one person with a Specialist’s degree.

Instrument

The instrument is a 25-item survey in Likert-type format developed by Dr.

Gwendolyn Mukes (See Appendix A). Questions were included based on the 5 research

20
questions for the study. Respondents rated each item on a continuum: Strongly Agree

(6), Somewhat Agree (5), Agree (4), Disagree (3), Somewhat Disagree (2), Strongly

Disagree (1). The questions are overt in nature thus face validity is sufficient.

Demographic information was requested at the end of the survey (See Appendix A).

Procedures

Participants were teachers at the identified elementary schools in the district who

volunteered to participate in the study. Surveys were brought to the schools and explained

at staff meetings by Dr. Gwendolyn Mukes. Participants were asked to take part in the

study, and a brief explanation of the research was imparted. Participants who agreed to

take part received a research packet containing a consent form (See Appendix B) and a

survey with demographic information requested at the end of the survey. After signing

the consent form the respondents were asked to respond to the survey form and provide

demographics. At 11 schools, the researcher had the participants fill out the surveys at

the meeting. At the remaining 10 schools the surveys were left and the researcher went

back and picked them up later.

21
 Chapter 4

Results

Psychometric Analyses

Due to the fact that this is the first time this instrument was used, tests were

completed to determine the reliability of the measure. An item analysis was performed to

determine missing values and extreme skewness of individual items. One question was

answered by so few respondents that it was eliminated from the study. Observation of

the results of the item analysis indicated that the remaining items could be statistically

analyzed; therefore, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Using the typical

cutoff of an Eigenvalue (Kaiser, 1970) of 1.0 generated eight factors, 3 of which were

meaningful and accounted for 34% of the variance. Another exploratory factor analysis

was performed; this time the 3 factors were forced to get factor loadings. High loading

items for each of 3 factors were chosen to determine which items compose each factor.

A Cronbach Alpha was conducted to determine inter-item reliability for each factor.

The first factor was misidentification of African Americans, indicating that high

scores suggested that teachers perceive that African Americans are more likely to be

over-identified for special education and under-identified for gifted education. There

were seven items for this factor. The Cronbach Alpha for this factor was r = .72.

The second factor was ability to learn for African Americans. High scores

indicated that teachers perceived that African American learners have a comparable

ability to learn as any other ethnic group. There were five items for this factor. The

Cronbach Alpha for this factor was r = .56.

22
 The third factor was adequate teacher training. High scores in this factor

indicated that teachers perceived that they were adequately trained to deal with diverse

populations. There were four items for this factor. The Cronbach Alpha for this factor

was r = .67.

It was decided that the Cronbach Alphas were sufficient to include these three

factors as being measured by the instrument. Eight items from the survey did not load on

any factor and therefore were not included on the analysis. See Appendix C for results of

statistical analyses.

Analyses Addressing Research Questions

The research questions for this study were:

1. What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of African American learners?

2. What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of African American students

recommended for special education placement?

3. What are elementary teachers’ awareness of traditional assessment tools used

to place children in their school district’s gifted education and special

education programs?

4. What are elementary teachers’ awareness of alternative assessment tools used

to place African American learners in their school district’s gifted education

programs?

5. Do elementary school teachers participate in staff development classes offered

to assist teachers in correctly identifying African American learners for gifted

and special education placement?

23
 Based on the 3 factors that were generated from the exploratory factor analysis,

only three of the research questions were really answered by the survey questions.

Questions 1, 2, and 5 are able to be discussed based upon results from the survey, but

questions 3 and 4 did not appear to adequately be covered on the survey. Question 1 is

described from this point on as African American students’ ability to learn. Question 2 is

described as misrepresentation, and question 5 is described as adequate teacher training.

Descriptive statistics. Scores are based on a 6 – point Likert scale from 6 =

Strongly Agree to 1 = Strongly Disagree. Because several of the demographic variables

included a broad range of numbers, categories were formed for analyses. The ages of the

participants ranged from 22 to 62; they were summarized into two groups; those who

were 35 years of age or less and those who were 36 years of age or more. Years of

teaching ranged from 1 to 35 years. This variable was also categorized into two groups:

those who taught for 15 years or less and those who taught 16 years or more. The

numbers of teachers in the several ethnic minorities were small; thus, all minority

teachers were categorized into one group. Finally, the three groups of teachers who had

more than a bachelor’s degree were also small; thus, all teachers who had schooling

beyond the bachelor’s degree were categorized into one group. See Table 1 for Means

and Standard Deviations for each factor for all individual variables. Because each factor

had a different number of items that loaded, means were calculated by totaling the

number of points for each item of the factor and then dividing by the number of items in

each factor. In order to interpret the mean scores, it is important to note that scores from 1

to 3 would designate disagreement with the factor, and scores from 4 to 6 would indicate

agreement with the factor.

24
Table 1

Numbers, Means and Standard Deviations of Each Factor for Each Demographic Variable

Misidentification Ability to Learn Adequate Training

N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Gender
M 16 3.2 (.63) 2.6 (.56) 2.5 (.51)
F 203 3.6 (.78) 2.7 (.57) 2.5 (.49)

Age Groups
22 – 35 125 3.4 (.68) 2.7 (.57) 2.6 (.48)
36 + 89 3.8 (.83) 2.8 (.58) 2.4 (.49)

Years Teaching
1 - 15 162 3.5 (.75) 2.7 (.58) 2.5 (.49)
16 + 55 3.8 (.81) 2.7 (.56) 2.4 (.51)

Ethnicity
White 163 3.5 (.81) 2.7 (.54) 2.5 (.50)
Minority 40 3.9 (.62) 2.9 (.67) 2.6 (.46)

Education
Bachelor’s 133 3.5 (.69) 2.7 (.54) 2.5 (.49)
Bachelor’s Plus 84 3.7 (.88) 2.8 (.61) 2.5 (.49)

Multicultural
Training
Yes 191 3.6 (.77) 2.7 (.58) 2.2 (.49)
No 27 3.7 (.79) 2.6 (.57) 2.5 (.48)

Total 329 3.6 (.78) 2.7 (.56) 2.5 (.51)

Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Because there were three dependent

variables (misidentification, ability to learn, and adequate teacher training), a MANOVA

was used for each of the independent variables. .

The first MANOVA was run for the independent variable of age. The analysis

indicated a significant finding for misidentification F(1, 212) = 12.02, p = .001. The

older age group was more likely to perceive that African American students are
25
misidentified for special education and gifted programs. Adequate teacher training was

also significant F(1,212) = 10.95, p = .001. The younger age group perceived that they

have had more adequate teacher training in how to deal with students from different

cultural backgrounds (see Table 2).

Table 2

MANOVA for Age and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, and Adequate Training

Factor df F P eta²

Misidentification 1 12.02 .001 .05

Ability to Learn 1 .34 .56 .00

Adequate Training 1 10.94 .001 .05

within-group error 212

The second MANOVA was run for the independent variable of ethnicity. The

results indicated a significant finding for misidentification F(1, 201) = 6.32, p = .01. The

minority group of teachers was more likely to perceive that African American students

are misidentified for special education and gifted programs. There was also a significant

finding for ability to learn F(1, 201) = 4.57, p = .03. Again, the minority group of

teachers perceived that African American have a comparable ability to learn as any other

ethnic group (see Table 3).

26
Table 3

MANOVA for Ethnicity and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, and Adequate Training

Factor df F P eta²

Misidentification 1 6.32 .01 .03

Ability to Learn 1 4.57 .03 .02

Adequate Training 1 1.51 .22 .00

within-group error 201

A third MANOVA was run for the independent variable of number of years

taught. A significant finding resulted for misidentification, F(2, 215) = 4.27, p = .04.

The group of teachers that taught 16 years or longer perceived that African American

students are more likely to be misidentified for special education and gifted programs

(see Table 4).

Table 4

MANOVA for Years Taught and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, and Adequate Training

Factor df F P eta²

Misidentification 1 4.27 .04 .02

Ability to Learn 1 .06 .81 .000

Adequate Training 1 2.16 .14 .01

within-group error 215

A fourth MANOVA was run for the independent variable of gender. A

significant finding resulted for misidentification F(1, 217) = 4.10, p = .044. Females

were more likely to perceive that African American students are misidentified for special

27
education and gifted programs (see Table 5). Because there were so few males in the

study, these results need to be addressed cautiously.

Table 5

MANOVA for Gender and Misidentification, Ability to Learn, and Adequate Training

Factor df F P eta²

Misidentification 1 4.10 .04 .02

Ability to Learn 1 .43 .52 .00

Adequate Training 1 .13 .72 .00

within-group error 217

A fifth and sixth MANOVA were run for the independent variables of educational

level of the teachers and the amount of multicultural training on the job teachers received.

There were no significant findings with any of the factors and these independent

variables.

28
 Chapter 5

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

In looking back at what was found, three research questions emerged that seem to

have evoked some type of significant findings. The first research question was, “What

are elementary teachers’ perception of African American learners?” Overall, it was

found that, generally speaking, the teachers surveyed for this study felt that African

American learners do not have a comparable ability to learn as any other ethnic group.

Based on this study it could be said that teachers, despite gender, age, length of teaching

service, degree attained, training received or ethnicity perceive that African American

students have a more difficult time learning than do students from other ethic groups.

Minority teachers were slightly less likely to feel this way, but their average scores still

fell in about the disagreement range as all other demographic groups.

This could be incredibly meaningful especially when one looks back at the

discussion about in-group and out-group dynamics (Hogg & Abrams, 2003; Wright &

Taylor, 2003). If the in-group, in this case, the White teachers, feel, even slightly, that

African American learners might not have a comparable ability to learn as other ethnic

groups, why would they see qualities of giftedness? Also, if the White teachers have this

perception, it may impact their behavior negatively. In their minds this may serve to

justify African American’s placement in society as a whole and especially their non-

placement in gifted programs, as cited by Wright and Taylor (2003).

Begeny and Colodarci (1989) found that teachers’ judgments are often vital in

determining access of students to academic programs. If teachers do not see African

29
American students as comparable to other students, they are certainly not going to

recommend them for placement in more challenging programs, (e.g., gifted education).

The second research question found to have a significant finding was, “What are

elementary teachers’ perceptions of African American learners recommended for special

education placement?” Overall scores showed that, generally speaking, the teachers

surveyed for this study felt that African American students are not misidentified when

they are placed in special education programs. Even though African American students

are represented at a higher ratio in special education programs than other ethnic groups,

teachers indicate that this is appropriate. However, the results did show that teachers

over the age of 35, teachers who have taught 16 plus years, and minority teachers are

more likely to perceive that African American learners are misidentified for special

education. What this says is that many teachers feel that special education is the

appropriate placement for African American students who are low performers .

A question then that might be raised by the findings from the first two questions is

this: If teachers feel that African American students cannot learn as well as other

students, AND they feel that they are not being misidentified for special education, what

chance do these students have? If the main people in their lives who can, and do, make

educational decisions that impact student futures simply think they are not capable of

doing any better, why should they try. Ford (2008) discussed the attitude – achievement

paradox-- that basically suggests that, although African American students have the

notion that hard work should reap success and they can repeat the mantra of the

American dream, they still do not tend to personalize it. They tend to believe that

although they know it’s true that hard work leads to success, they do not see it around

30
them in their daily lives and therefore do not really think that it applies to them

personally. And if that is the case, why should they put out the extra effort it takes to be

successful. Also based on literature (Begeny, Eckert, Montarello & Storie, 2008;

Hinnant, O'Brien & Ghazarian, 2009; Ladd & Linderholm, 2008; McKown & Weinstein,

2008), there is evidence that what a teacher thinks about a student can impact their future

performance even years into the future. If the findings from this study are accurate, this

issue could turn out to be a big part of the achievement gap puzzle.

The final research question that showed any significance was, “Do elementary

school teachers participate in staff development classes offered to assist teachers in

correctly identifying African American learners for gifted and special education

placement?” Overall scores showed that across the board, teachers surveyed for this

study feel that they have not adequately participated in staff development designed to

assist teachers in correctly identifying African American learners for gifted or for special

education. The younger age group teachers felt somewhat as though they have had more

adequate training in this area than the older age teachers. Other than that, there was no

really difference between any other of the groups.

This suggests that younger teachers have had more opportunities to learn about

cultural differences because this topic has come more to the forefront in just the last few

years. This may or may not mean that these teachers are actually better at identifying

African American students for special education or gifted placements.

What does this all mean for educators now? The MODE model (Fazio & Olson,

2003) addresses the predicament in which many teachers find themselves. With ever-

increasing class sizes, more diverse populations, fewer resources in some cases, and

31
responsibilities outside of school, teachers often do not have the motivation and/or

opportunity to make the informed and thoughtful decisions about students that they may

really know very little about. They may resort to using their predetermined perceptions

and attitudes to make vital academic decisions. These decisions can impact students for

years to come. The study by Hinnant, et al. (2009) indicated that a teacher’s view of a

student’s math performance impacted their actual math performance even up to 4 years

later. This was especially seen in families with average to low incomes, which includes

many African American students.

The perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of teachers play a vital role in the

performance of all students. This study provides evidence that it could be possible that

some teachers feel that African American learners are not as capable as other students. It

also suggests that some teachers believe the most appropriate placement for low-

achieving African American students is in special education. And it also has shown that

teachers may not be getting adequate training to recognize qualities of giftedness in

African American learners. This could be a lethal combination when it comes to the

prognosis of the representation of African American students in gifted education.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study, as with any study. One of the

limitations was the data collection process. The surveys were briefly explained and then

left at the building sites to be filled out at a later time. If this study were to be done

again, the survey should probably be filled out at the time that they are explained and

handed out.

32
 Another serious limitation is the newness of the instrument. It turned out that

several of the questions were not used in the final analysis because they did not really get

to the heart of what the study was about. Also, the researchers feel that even the

questions that were used may not have really measured perceptions and attitudes as well

as they would have liked. The instrument needs to be revisited and worked on for

reliability and validity. Also, the Likert scale was somewhat confusing because in the

middle it went from 4 = Agree to 3 = Disagree to 2 = Somewhat Disagree. Some of the

respondents remarked on their survey that it should have gone from Agree, to Somewhat

Disagree, to Disagree. Because of this, it appeared that sometime during the survey they

realized the Likert numbers were not what they thought they were and went back and

changed their responses.

Recommendations for Future Research

One possible recommendation for future research would be to find out why some

teachers see African American learners as having a less comparable ability to learn as

other ethnic groups. Another might be that if the findings of this survey are accurate,

what can be done to change teachers’ perceptions of African American students?

Another possible aspect to look into would be to see these apparent attitudes about

African American learners is really related to ethnicity, or is it possibly more related to

socioeconomic status. Could it be teachers feel this way about learners who come from

disadvantaged economic situations, regardless of ethnicity? Finally, it would be

recommended the instrument be further developed to build more reliable and valid

questions and then see if the results attained are the same.

33
REFERENCES

34
 LIST OF REFERENCES

The American Heritage Dictionary. (New College Edition). (1976). Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing
Service.

Begeny, J. C., Eckert, T. L., Montarello, S. A., & Storie, M. S. (2008, March 1).
Teachers' perceptions of students' reading abilities: An examination of the
relationship between teachers' judgments and students' performance across a
continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 43 - 55.

Boone, R. S., & King-Berry, A. (2007, Summer). African american students with
disabilities:Beneficiaries of the legacy? The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3),
334 - 348.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions and

consequences. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The sage handbook of social
psychology (pp. 123 - 145). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students:Promising

practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. I. (1996). Perceptions and attitudes of Black students toward
school, achievement, and other educational variables. Child Development, 67(3),
1141 - 1152.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008, March 1). Another look at the
achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban
Education, 43(2), 216 - 239.

Goethals, G. (2003). A century of social psychology: Individuals, ideas, and

investigations. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The sage handbook of social
psychology (pp. 3 - 23). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Hinnant, J. B., O'Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of
teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662 - 670.

Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement:

A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297 - 313.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (2003). Intergroups behavior and social identity. In M. A.
Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 335 -360).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

35
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika,35, 401-415.

Kansas Department of Education. (2001, September 1). General Education Interventions,

initial evaluation, eligibility and the IEP. Retrieved from www.kansped.org.
[Cited: March 1, 2010]

Kansas Department of Education. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2585. [Cited: March 1, 2010]

Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2000). Classroom and grade level differences in
the stability of teacher expectations and perceived differential teacher treatment.
Learning Environments Research, 38, 1 - 34.

Ladd, J. A., & Linderholm, T. (2008). A consequence of school grade labels: Preservice
teachers' interpretations and recall of childrens' classroom behavior. Social
Psychology Education, 11, 229 - 241.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context and
the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235 - 261.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007352.pdf. [Cited: May 1, 2010]

Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of "acting White" in Black history,
community and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1 - 35.

Oswald, D. P., & Coutinho, M. J. (2006). What is disproportional representation? The

Special Edge, 20(1), 6 - 7.

Quinn, K. A., Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Stereotyping and impression
formation: How categorical thinking shapes person perception. In M. A. Hogg &
J. Cooper (Eds.), The sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 68 - 92). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.

Simons, C. C. (2005, July 31). Teaching the teachers: Those who can, and can't. New
York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/education/simons31.html. [Cited: April 1,
2010]

Smith, A., & Kozleski, E. (2005, October 1). Witnessing "Brown": Pursuit of an equity
agenda in american education. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 270 - 280.

Steele, C. M. (1999). Thin ice: "stereotype threat" and Black college students. Atlantic
Monthly, 284(2), 50 - 54.

36
Suinn, R. M., & Borrayo, E. A. (2008). The ethnicity gap: The past, present and future.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(6), 646 - 651.

Williams, E. (2007). Unnecessary and unjustified: African-american parental perceptions

of special education. The Educational Forum, 71, 250 - 261.

Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). The social psychology of cultural diversity:Social
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.),
The sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 360 - 387). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.

37
APPENDICES

38
 Appendix A

WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

CONSENT FORM
General Information

You are invited to participate in a study investigating the approaches used for the
placement of African American and Hispanic learners in the gifted and special education
programs in your school district. The title of the study is: The Identification of Minority
Learners In Public Schools.

Participation in this study is not mandatory and is strictly voluntary. Your

decision to participate will not affect your future relationship with Wichita State
University. If you decide to participate, please be aware that you may withdraw from the
study at any time. Information obtained in this study will remain confidential but the
conclusive findings will be shared with all.

If you have any questions at this time or during the study, you may contact Dr.
Gwendolyn F. Mukes at Wichita State University, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction (316) 978.6298. Results of this investigation will be provided to you in
written form, following the completion of the study.

You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep. You are under no
obligation to participate in this study. Your signature indicates that you have read the
information provided above and have voluntarily agreed to participate.

____________________________________ ______________________________
Participant’s Signature Date Signature of Investigator Date

Wichita State University - Wichita, Kansas 67260-0028 Telephone (316) 978.3322 Fax: (316) 978.6935
www.wichita.edu

39
 Appendix B

Questionnaire for Teachers

Directions: Please indicate your responses concerning your perceptions about the problems
related to identifying gifted students who are African American or Hispanic using the following
code:

6 = Strongly Agree; 5 = Somewhat agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Disagree; 2 = Somewhat Disagree; 1 =

Strongly Disagree

1. Teachers in my building are encouraged to use alternative assessments

to identify gifted traits in ethnic minority students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

2. The standard intelligence testing has limited the participation of students

from culturally diverse backgrounds. 6 5 4 3 2 1

3. As a result of the training I received, I believe that all children, regardless of

race and/or culture, are intelligent and have the capacity to have gifted
qualities. 6 5 4 3 2 1

4. Special education is the correct placement for ethnic minority students who
are low academic achievers. 6 5 4 3 2 1

5. I am concerned that placing ethnic minority males in existing gifted

programs will lower the quality of those programs. 6 5 4 3 2 1

6. The WISC-R is an excellent alternative assessment tool that is accurate

in its assessment of all children for gifted education. 6 5 4 3 2 1

7. My formal education has prepared me to work with students whose cultures

are different from mine. 6 5 4 3 2 1

8. Teachers often do not recognize indicators of potential giftedness in ethnic

Minority males. 6 5 4 3 2 1

9. Intellectual giftedness is not valued by some cultural groups and, therefore,

their children are not encouraged to do well in school. 6 5 4 3 2 1

10. It is necessary to staff an ethnic minority student for special education

classes when he or she demonstrates an inability to participate in an
academic setting. 6 5 4 3 2 1

11. I am knowledgeable about alternative assessment identification tools

that can be used to identify gifted traits in ethnic minority students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

12. My school district offers staff development classes that address inclusion
of diverse populations. 6 5 4 3 2 1

40
13. Many potentially gifted ethnic minority males are not correctly identified
because of their lackluster performance in the classroom. 6 5 4 3 2 1

14. It is the responsibility of psychologists, not teachers, to identify the correct

alternative assessment tools. 6 5 4 3 2 1

15. Traditional methods used to identify students have relied primarily on

intelligence testing. 6 5 4 3 2 1

16. I do not feel that I was given adequate training in college to handle different
cultures in my classroom. 6 5 4 3 2 1

17. Unacceptable behavior may be an indication that alternative assessment

should be used to diagnose needs of ethnic minority males. 6 5 4 3 2 1

18. Traditional IQ tests do not discriminate against minority students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

19. Due to unawareness of prejudices, teachers may not nominate ethnic

Minority male learners for gifted education placement. 6 5 4 3 2 1

20. The standard intelligence tests have limited the participation of students
from culturally diverse backgrounds. 6 5 4 3 2 1

21. I have taken classes that prepared me to teach children from different
cultures. 6 5 4 3 2 1

22. Teachers often over-recognize indicators for special education placement

of ethnic minority students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

23. Alternative assessments can determine if an ethnic minority student is

gifted. 6 5 4 3 2 1

24. Parents often do not provide stimulating early home environments; thus,
students from ethnic minority groups often enter school at a disadvantage
and are unlikely to catch up. 6 5 4 3 2 1

25. Differences in background experiences often hinder the development of

giftedness in ethnic minority males. 6 5 4 3 2 1

41
 Demographic Information

Gender: M F Number of years as a teacher Age at last birthday

Ethnicity: African American Asian American European American Hispanic Native

American

Other………… .

School Grade taught

My bachelor’s degree was received from Year

Have you ever taken any course or staff development that addressed alternative testing
procedures? Yes No

If you answered Yes, how many courses have you taken?

Have you ever taken a multicultural education course during your pre-professional training? Yes
No

Staff development on multicultural education? Yes No

42
 Appendix C
Psychometric Analyses
Factor Analysis
Communalities

Initial Extraction
q1 .194 .289
q2 .383 .399
q3 .222 .517
q4r .171 .239
q5r .143 .162
q7 .380 .610
q8 .545 .587
q9r .389 .482
q10r .252 .324
q11 .164 .213
q12 .267 .538
q13 .303 .365
q14r .226 .318
q15 .245 .243
q16 .316 .372
q17 .308 .348
q18r .303 .383
q19 .352 .352
q20 .506 .579
q21 .372 .465
q22 .327 .390
q23 .210 .275
q24r .493 .605
q25r .446 .768
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

43
44
 Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.945 16.437 16.437 3.409 14.205 14.205 2.542 10.592 10.592
2 2.222 9.260 25.697 1.682 7.007 21.211 1.373 5.721 16.313
3 2.113 8.803 34.500 1.574 6.557 27.768 1.327 5.531 21.844
4 1.508 6.285 40.785 .873 3.638 31.406 1.089 4.536 26.380
5 1.260 5.249 46.034 .692 2.883 34.289 .975 4.063 30.443
6 1.183 4.928 50.962 .635 2.644 36.933 .913 3.803 34.247
7 1.094 4.557 55.519 .507 2.111 39.044 .847 3.528 37.774
8 1.022 4.258 59.777 .455 1.895 40.939 .760 3.165 40.939
9 .910 3.792 63.569
10 .879 3.664 67.233
11 .841 3.504 70.737
12 .788 3.285 74.022
13 .751 3.130 77.153
14 .706 2.942 80.095
15 .687 2.862 82.957
16 .635 2.648 85.605
17 .617 2.572 88.176
18 .572 2.385 90.561
19 .498 2.077 92.638
20 .474 1.974 94.612
21 .404 1.682 96.293
22 .316 1.317 97.610
23 .295 1.229 98.840
24 .278 1.160 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

45
 Factor Matrix(a)

Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
q1 -.074 .059 .231 .363 .132 .098 .251 -.069
q2 .531 .234 .032 .094 -.132 -.110 .151 .020
q3 .068 -.048 .347 -.362 -.187 .250 .378 .133
q4r .074 .391 .116 -.018 -.166 -.030 -.108 .165
q5r -.086 .169 .201 -.078 -.207 .176 -.037 -.063
q7 -.224 -.209 .617 -.049 -.023 -.343 -.059 .104
q8 .722 .151 .041 .111 .117 -.060 -.056 .096
q9r -.482 .325 .091 -.133 -.064 -.075 .115 -.308
q10r .028 .335 .254 .092 -.206 .203 -.198 .126
q11 -.020 -.178 .111 .317 .148 -.127 .170 .036
q12 -.060 -.249 .404 .444 .088 .322 -.007 -.013
q13 .497 -.179 .112 -.124 .134 -.015 .043 .194
q14r -.031 .308 .013 .270 -.326 -.034 .014 .203
q15 .345 -.082 .227 -.252 .011 -.017 -.020 .043
q16 .292 .101 -.395 -.026 -.004 .124 .324 .009
q17 .519 -.159 .032 -.135 .093 .151 .005 .049
q18r .361 .347 .133 .026 -.010 .133 -.105 -.293
q19 .531 .062 .088 -.025 .207 -.062 -.041 -.100
q20 .660 .306 .138 .096 -.021 -.014 .031 -.141
q21 -.192 -.144 .609 -.076 -.028 -.078 .077 -.133
q22 .458 .254 .151 .048 .039 -.292 .067 -.004
q23 .333 -.071 .191 -.217 .127 .162 -.154 -.099
q24r -.394 .582 .059 -.127 .230 -.127 .138 .053
q25r -.462 .495 .122 -.069 .462 .188 -.056 .198
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
a Attempted to extract 8 factors. More than 25 iterations required. (Convergence=.006). Extraction was terminated.

Factor Transformation Matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 .784 -.231 -.330 .396 .004 -.058 .239 .075
2 .402 -.236 .593 -.352 .506 -.139 -.162 -.073
3 .202 .757 .088 -.016 .294 .373 .200 .336
4 .090 -.097 -.177 .046 .134 .737 -.374 -.499
5 .082 -.014 .641 .218 -.512 .254 .387 -.241
6 -.357 -.489 .003 .114 .424 .337 .500 .277
7 .137 -.260 .078 -.212 -.399 .326 -.368 .680
8 -.152 .037 .289 .781 .197 -.101 -.449 .177
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

46
 Factor Analysis
Communalities

Initial Extraction
q1 .194 .045
q2 .383 .335
q3 .222 .079
q4r .171 .175
q5r .143 .076
q7 .380 .420
q8 .545 .545
q9r .389 .336
q10r .252 .157
q11 .164 .037
q12 .267 .141
q13 .303 .295
q14r .226 .089
q15 .245 .183
q16 .316 .238
q17 .308 .304
q18r .303 .249
q19 .352 .292
q20 .506 .558
q21 .372 .492
q22 .327 .286
q23 .210 .147
q24r .493 .448
q25r .446 .326
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

47
48
 Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.945 16.437 16.437 3.314 13.810 13.810 3.161 13.171 13.171
2 2.222 9.260 25.697 1.510 6.291 20.101 1.578 6.577 19.748
3 2.113 8.803 34.500 1.428 5.951 26.053 1.513 6.305 26.053
4 1.508 6.285 40.785
5 1.260 5.249 46.034
6 1.183 4.928 50.962
7 1.094 4.557 55.519
8 1.022 4.258 59.777
9 .910 3.792 63.569
10 .879 3.664 67.233
11 .841 3.504 70.737
12 .788 3.285 74.022
13 .751 3.130 77.153
14 .706 2.942 80.095
15 .687 2.862 82.957
16 .635 2.648 85.605
17 .617 2.572 88.176
18 .572 2.385 90.561
19
2.077 92.638
.498
20 .474 1.974 94.612
21 .404 1.682 96.293
22 .316 1.317 97.610
23 .295 1.229 98.840
24 .278 1.160 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

49
50
 Factor Matrix(a)

Factor
1 2 3
q1 -.067 .072 .188
q2 .531 .229 .013
q3 .061 -.033 .273
q4r .080 .399 .095
q5r -.082 .187 .185
q7 -.215 -.158 .591
q8 .726 .129 .019
q9r -.465 .336 .083
q10r .033 .332 .214
q11 -.019 -.161 .105
q12 -.055 -.185 .322
q13 .492 -.200 .113
q14r -.027 .297 -.008
q15 .342 -.091 .240
q16 .284 .071 -.390
q17 .517 -.187 .031
q18r .357 .332 .106
q19 .531 .042 .085
q20 .670 .306 .122
q21 -.196 -.113 .664
q22 .454 .244 .139
q23 .326 -.080 .187
q24r -.370 .557 .035
q25r -.401 .401 .072
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
a 3 factors extracted. 9 iterations required.

51
 Rotated Factor Matrix(a)

Factor
1 2 3
q1 -.007 .124 .173
q2 .545 .115 -.156
q3 .121 .016 .254
q4r .158 .386 -.030
q5r -.006 .235 .143
q7 -.082 .021 .642
q8 .719 -.018 -.165
q9r -.376 .432 .086
q10r .133 .357 .109
q11 -.016 -.127 .144
q12 .001 -.095 .363
q13 .471 -.265 .058
q14r .015 .287 -.079
q15 .374 -.104 .180
q16 .186 -.074 -.445
q17 .476 -.276 -.029
q18r .417 .269 -.059
q19 .536 -.047 -.039
q20 .717 .185 -.101
q21 -.039 .076 .696
q22 .505 .173 -.025
q23 .347 -.101 .130
q24r -.265 .614 -.035
q25r -.308 .479 .047
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Factor Transformation Matrix

Factor 1 2 3
1 .958 -.200 -.205
2 .144 .955 -.258
3 .248 .218 .944
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

52
 Reliability
Scale: misidentification
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.721 .718 7

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 238 73.5
Excluded(a
86 26.5
)
Total 324 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

q2 q8 q13 q17 q18r q19 q22

q2 1.000 .419 .179 .282 .268 .206 .317
q8 .419 1.000 .334 .220 .295 .456 .409
q13 .179 .334 1.000 .305 .046 .310 .253
q17 .282 .220 .305 1.000 .134 .234 .170
q18r .268 .295 .046 .134 1.000 .221 .281
q19 .206 .456 .310 .234 .221 1.000 .269
q22 .317 .409 .253 .170 .281 .269 1.000

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

q2 3.48 1.311 238
q8 3.39 1.441 238
q13 3.78 1.227 238
q17 3.69 1.138 238
q18r 4.24 1.292 238
q19 3.17 1.352 238
q22 3.32 1.151 238

53
 Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
q2 21.58 22.573 .449 .248 .684
q8 21.68 20.092 .597 .390 .642
q13 21.29 23.884 .375 .208 .702
q17 21.38 24.616 .352 .161 .707
q18r 20.83 24.067 .328 .152 .714
q19 21.90 22.192 .460 .257 .681
q22 21.75 23.421 .462 .232 .683

54
 Reliability

Scale: difficulty learning

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 288 88.9
Excludeda 36 11.1
Total 324 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.557 .557 5

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

q9r 3.53 1.394 288
q24r 3.34 1.381 288
q25r 3.18 1.198 288
q4r 4.64 1.264 288
q10r 4.50 1.263 288

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

q9r q24r q25r q4r q10r

q9r 1.000 .322 .258 .076 .080
q24r .322 1.000 .555 .149 .084
q25r .258 .555 1.000 .088 .071
q4r .076 .149 .088 1.000 .324
q10r .080 .084 .071 .324 1.000

55
 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
q9r 15.66 10.700 .291 .116 .519
q24r 15.85 9.503 .457 .351 .411
q25r 16.01 10.683 .406 .315 .454
q4r 14.55 11.607 .243 .120 .543
q10r 14.69 11.878 .209 .109 .561

56
 Reliability

Scale: adequate training

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 314 96.9
Excludeda 10 3.1
Total 324 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all
variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.672 .675 4

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

q7 4.5764 1.23664 314
q21 4.6433 1.14458 314
q12 4.3885 1.24941 314
q16r 3.9268 1.38143 314

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

q7 q21 q12 q16r

q7 1.000 .462 .256 .427
q21 .462 1.000 .334 .331
q12 .256 .334 1.000 .244
q16r .427 .331 .244 1.000

57
 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
q7 12.9586 7.624 .521 .302 .560
q21 12.8917 8.090 .508 .276 .573
q12 13.1465 8.560 .354 .137 .668
q16r 13.6083 7.453 .444 .216 .614

58
No Content

59