Fisher 2013

AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY
THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORY ON TEACHER

PERCEPTION OF GIFTEDNESS AND THE REFERRAL OF
AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS TO GIFTED
AND TALENTED EDUCATION PROGRAMS
by
Tanya A. Fisher
A dissertation submitted to the
School of Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Doctor of Education
Azusa, California
July, 2013
UMI Number: 3564572
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3564572
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY

by
Tanya A. Fisher
has been approved by the
School of Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Doctor of Education
Jenny Y.P. Yau, Ed.D., Committee Chair
Hae-Seong Park, Ph.D., Committee Member
Pamela M. Christian, Ph.D., Committee Member
Anita Fitzgerald Henck, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

© Copyright by Tanya A. Fisher 2013
All Rights Reserved
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Robert and Elizabeth Amerson, who
instilled in me the confidence to apply myself, by providing their unconditional love and
support. I feel their presence with me daily, and I am forever grateful for the sacrifices
that they made to be the wind beneath my wings.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to begin by giving honor to God, who has provided me with
wisdom, guidance, and strength to complete this doctoral program and dissertation. I am
thankful for Him carrying me through the many trials and family losses throughout this
process.
Thank you to my family for your encouragement and motivation. You have been
more inspirational than you may know. To my Aunts, Uncles, and Cousins who inspired
me in fulfilling my dream, you always reminded me of our family’s belief in the value of
education. To my sons, David and Mychal, only we know the trials over which we have
overcome; you are my joy, and my love for you has inspired me to succeed.
Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Jenny Yau, Dr. H. Park, and
Dr. Pamela Christian for your patience, guidance, and wisdom. Your thoughtful
feedback and insightful suggestions were my guiding light during many midnight hours.
Your encouragement and support over the years have made this dissertation process more
rewarding.
Finally, I would like to thank the district studied and the participants for their
cooperation, participation, and support of this research project.
iv
ABSTRACT

Tanya A. Fisher
Doctor of Education, 2013
Azusa Pacific University
Advisor: Jenny Y. P. Yau, Ed.D.
Programs for gifted students have been criticized for narrowly defining giftedness as
merely cognitive or academic performance. Teacher referrals are usually an important
component of identifying gifted students. Teacher perceptions, low expectations, and
lack of cultural competence are perceived as barriers to the access of Gifted and Talented
Education programs for African American students. This study examined the impact of
teachers’ knowledge of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983, 2006,
2011) on their perception of giftedness in the referral of African American students to
Gifted and Talented Education programs. Research questions were: (a) What is teachers’
knowledge of the current district criteria for referral of students to Gifted and Talented
programs? (b) Are there differences in the conceptions of referral criteria of teachers
with training in MI Theory vs. teachers without training in MI Theory? (c) Are there
differences in teacher attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness in teachers having
v
training in MI Theory vs. teachers having no training in MI Theory? (d) How do cultural
factors impact teacher perceptions of giftedness in African American students, in teachers
with training in MI Theory vs. teachers without training in MI Theory, and the referral of
African American students to Gifted and Talented Education programs? Using a mixed-
methods approach, a quasi-experimental design and qualitative inquiry were utilized.
Findings indicated that all teachers demonstrated limited knowledge of district referral
criteria. However, teachers having MI Theory training demonstrated greater knowledge
of the district’s Alternative Referral and Identification Criteria. Conceptual differences
were found in the need for alternative pathways such as peer nominations. Findings
noted differences for teachers having training in MI Theory with greater knowledge of
characteristics of giftedness and the impact of that knowledge on cultural factors relating
to students’ use of non-standard English in the perception of giftedness. Greater focus on
leadership is needed in the current federal definition of giftedness. Overall, findings
suggested that training in Multiple Intelligence Theory provides a framework for greater
understanding of the multifaceted attributes of intelligence, which may result in greater
opportunities to identify non-traditional areas of giftedness in African American students.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
Figure 1: Demographics of School District 2011-2012 .....................................................74
Chapter Page
1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................7
Significance of the Study .........................................................................................7
Definition of Key Terms ..........................................................................................8
2. Review of the Literature ...............................................................................................10
Documentation of the Literature Search ................................................................10
Theories of Intelligence .........................................................................................11
Historical Perspectives and Assessment of Intelligence ............................12
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence .....................................................13
Neuroscience and Evidence of the Learning Process ............................................17
vii
Chapter Page
Cognitive Neuroscience .............................................................................17
Brain Structures and Functions ..................................................................18
Contemporary Research on Hemispheric Laterization, Preference, and
Learning .....................................................................................................19
Hemispheric Dominance and Preference ...................................................19
The Brain and Learning .............................................................................20
Neuroscience and Education ..................................................................................21
Culture and African American Students’ Learning ...............................................23
Culture and Learning .................................................................................24
Culture and Cognitive Style .......................................................................25
African American Learners’ Learning Styles ............................................27
Cultural Discontinuity: Home and School Connections ............................29
Cultural Misperceptions and Learning.......................................................31
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ...............................................................33
Conceptualizations of Giftedness ..........................................................................34
Theories of Giftedness ...........................................................................................37
Renzulli’s Three Ring Conceptual Model .................................................38
Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent ...........................39
Multiple Intelligences and Giftedness ...................................................................40
Classroom and Instructional Implications .................................................40
Strengths and Talent Development ............................................................41
Underrepresentation of African American Students in Gifted Programs ..............43
viii
Chapter Page
Limitations of the Deficit Perspectives ......................................................45
Academic Achievement Gap and Access to Gifted and Talented
Programs ........................................................................................46
Inadequate Teacher Preparation .................................................................47
Influences of Peer and Social Culture on African American Students ......49
Barriers to Participation in Gifted and Talented Programs ........................51
Teacher Perceptions of Students’ Abilities ................................................51
The Nomination and Referral Process .......................................................53
Identification and Assessment Practices ....................................................55
Implications of Policies and Program Designs ..........................................57
Theoretical Framework of This Study ...................................................................60
Summary of the Literature Review ........................................................................63
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................64
Research Design and Rationale .............................................................................64
Role of the Researcher ...........................................................................................66
Participants in the Study ........................................................................................67
Demographic Data for Questionnaire Participants ....................................67
Demographic Data for Interview Participants ...........................................69
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................69
Schroth and Helfer Instrument ...................................................................70
Frasier et al. Instrument .............................................................................70
The Questionnaire for This Study ..............................................................71
ix
Chapter Page
Interview Protocol ......................................................................................72
Procedures for Data Collection ..............................................................................73
Phase One: District Data ............................................................................73
Phase Two: Questionnaire Data .................................................................74
Phase Three: Interview Data ......................................................................75
4. Data Analysis and Findings ..........................................................................................76
Analysis of Quantitative Data ................................................................................76
Analysis of Qualitative Data ..................................................................................77
Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................77
Background of the GATE Plan ..................................................................77
District Referral and Screening Process ....................................................78
District GATE Identification Criteria ........................................................79
Impact Factors and Alternative Criteria .....................................................80
District Data Trends ...................................................................................81
Teacher Knowledge of the District Criteria ...............................................82
Teacher Knowledge of District Alternative Criteria ..................................82
Teacher Training on the Referral Process ..................................................83
Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................95
5. Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ..........................................................97
x
Chapter Page
Teachers’ Limited Knowledge of Referral Criteria and Subjective
Tendencies .................................................................................................98
Teacher Knowledge of Alternative Criteria and Impact Factors ...............99
The Referral Process ..................................................................................99
Teacher Conceptions of Referral Criteria ................................................101
Alternative Pathways for Referral ...........................................................102
The Need for a Broadened Perspective of Giftedness .........................................103
Multiple Intelligence Theory and Teacher Perception.............................105
Leadership and Giftedness Potential........................................................106
Teacher Awareness of Cultural Factors and the Perception of Giftedness ..........108
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................110
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies ..................................................111
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................113
References ........................................................................................................................114
Appendix Page
A: Essential Elements to Culturally Responsive Teaching.................................146
B: Informed Consent and Invitation to Participate in Study ...............................149
C: Informed Consent and Invitation to Participate in Interview .........................152
D: Questionnaire .................................................................................................155
E: Interview Protocol ..........................................................................................160
F: Matrix for Interview Questions ......................................................................165
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Questionnaire Participants (N = 39)................68
Table 2: Biographical Information of Interview Participants ...........................................69
Table 3: Demographics for Students Screened from 2009-2011 ......................................81
Table 4: Univariate Analysis of Variance for Knowledge of District
Referral Criteria ..................................................................................................83
Table 5: Means of Teacher Conceptions of Referral Criteria ...........................................85
Table 6: Univariate Analysis of Variance for Conception of Referral Criteria ................86
Table 7: Means for Criteria to Demonstrate Giftedness ...................................................88
Table 8: Univariate Analysis of Variance for Impact of Culture on Perception
with MI Theory Training ....................................................................................92
Table 9: Means for Impact of Culture on Teacher Perception..........................................93
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The number of minority students, particularly African American and Hispanic
students, participating in gifted and talent programs continues to reflect a startling
deficiency. Although much focus has been on the disproportionally higher number of
African American students placed in Special Education, there are also concerns about the
underrepresentation of African American students enrolled in gifted and talented
programs. Even with the growing emphasis and research defining intelligence, talent
development, and strength based learning, Ford (2006b) wrote, “Sadly, I have seen little
progress relative to demographic changes—Black and Hispanic students continue to be in
gifted programs today as they were 20 years ago” (p. 2).
The low representation of African American students in gifted and talented
programs continues to be of national concern (Chinn & Hughes, 1987; Ford, 2005;
Maker, 1996), with many minority groups of students including African Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans being underserved in gifted education nationally by
50% to 70% (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford & Grantham, 2003). These dismal statistics
have serious negative consequences to the educational and social futures of the nation’s
youth, as well as the economic stability of communities and the nation. According to the
policy report, High Schools for Equity (School Redesign Network, 2007), 50,000 new
1
African American inmates were added to the California state prison system during the
1990s, while African American enrollment in higher education declined; for every 57
who were enrolled in higher education, one was lost from higher education.
Incarceration is tightly linked to a lack of education, as most inmates are functionally
illiterate and lack a high school degree. With the poor educational structures and low
academic outcomes noted in many urban schools, often African American and other
minority students are denied access to rigorous education and high standards that would
enable them to reach their full potential. According to Jackson (2001), the perpetrator in
the crime of squandered potential, is a systemic lack of opportunity, often fueled by lack
of belief.
Concrete solutions to the underrepresentation of African American students in
gifted education have yet to be developed (Dickson, 2003). Research by Borland and
Wright (1994) indicated that under-identification of children from minority populations
and the economically disadvantaged are contributing factors to the underrepresentation.
Further consternation is attributed to the lack of a clear definition as to giftedness
and the current narrow scope of assessments used to identify “giftedness”. Essentially,
who is included in the discussion of giftedness and who is left on the periphery are linked
to how the term is defined. Current definitions of giftedness vary considerably. The U.S.
Department of Education (1993) provided this definition:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for
performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with
other children of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth
exhibit high performance capacity in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas
and unusual leadership capacity or excel in specific academic fields. They require
services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school. Outstanding talents
are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic
strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 19)
2
The use of tests to identify and assess students is pervasive in gifted education, and test
scores play a dominant role in identification and placement decisions (Ford, Harris,
Tyson, & Frazier-Trotman, 2002). Van Tassel-Baska, Patton, and Prillman (1989) found
that 88.5% of the states rely primarily on standardized, norm referenced tests to identify
gifted and talented students, including those from culturally diverse groups. Colangelo
and Davis (1997) indicated that more than 90% of school districts use these test scores
for placement decisions, which results in keeping the demographics of these programs
overrepresented with White middle class students. This is compounded by the fact that
many minority students in economically challenged urban centers are often relegated to
underperforming schools with less qualified teachers. This then contributes to poor
educational performance on assessments, which limits access to programs, which places
high emphasis on standardized tests scores. Ford, Moore, and Milner (2005) asserted that
for more than 7 decades, African American students have been under-identified in gifted
education. Additionally, Ford (1995) indicated two primary factors associated with the
under-identification of gifted African American students: (a) lack of teacher referral and
(b) poor test performance.
As researchers and educators seek to define giftedness, they refer to the
conceptualization of intelligence proposed by different theories of intelligence. A theory
that can explain students’ diverse strengths, abilities, and talents is Howard Gardner’s
Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 2006). Gardner (2011) distinguished
among nine types of intelligences—linguistic, logical-mathematical, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, naturalist, and existential—each of
which demonstrates distinct forms of perception, memory, and other psychological
3
processes. Gardner (2006, 2011) defined intelligence as the ability to solve problems or
to create products valued within one’s cultural orientation. This theory acknowledges the
multifaceted nature of intelligence and touts the fact that current tests are too narrow and
“static” in defining the construct of intelligence (Gardner, 2006).
Further compounding inequity in representation, Frasier (1993) identified attitude,
access, assessment, and accommodation as persistent barriers to the identification of
gifted students from underserved populations. Many schools have the propensity to over
rely on standardized assessments and may have flaws in their referral process, which may
restrict the number of African American students recruited for participation in gifted and
talented programs (Morris, 2002). Several factors have been proposed as roots of the
current underrepresentation problem. Cultural bias in testing and personal bias on the
part of educators (Briggs, Reis, & Sullivan, 2008) are among the issues that prevent high-
ability students who are also from low-income or minority families from being noticed
and can prevent them from receiving high test scores. To improve the recruitment and
retention rate of students of color enrolled in gifted programs, serious consideration must
be given to how intelligence and giftedness is identified and by what means they are
assessed. According to Naglieri and Kaufman (2001), a considerable amount of research
has been conducted during the last 50 years that examines specific abilities beyond the
traditional assessments introduced by Wechsler and Binet in the early 1900s. This
cognitive revolution has provided important foundational research for redefining
intelligence and has resulted in magnifying the need to identify alternatives to traditional
IQ tests and the identification of giftedness.
4
Research has also confirmed the role of culture and its mediation in the processes
of teaching and learning (Gay, 2000; Grantham & Ford, 2003; Hilliard, 1995). Given
how culture can emerge in students’ and teachers’ conceptions and perceptions of
knowledge, learning, and ability, teachers need to rethink definitions of giftedness and
how it is conceptualized (Milner & Ford, 2007). There is a level of urgency associated
with identifying and retaining culturally diverse students in gifted education. Ford (1996)
noted that this must be a particular consideration for teachers. She postulated that the
teacher can play an essential role in the educational success of students. She further
intimated that teachers play a significant role in reversing the current trends, as they come
into contact with these potentially gifted children at an early age.
Statement of the Problem
Schools are failing to identify gifted African American students, and they are
often not referred for assessment and identification of giftedness. A multiplicity of
culturally related factors such as incongruence in teaching and learning style, teacher
bias, and discontinuity between home and school cultures compound this problem.
Furthermore, many African American students fail to meet the stereotypical, traditional
models of “gifted students” as narrowly defined by many programs.
Owing to a history of segregation in educational practices, in 1960 the school
district under study was court-ordered to desegregate the schools. This desegregation
order resulted in the establishment of the Gifted and Talented Program and the creation of
Magnet Schools. Even with the establishment of these programs, the majority of students
identified and participating in these programs continued to be non-minority or White
students. Although referral pathways include standardized and achievement tests scores,
5
teacher and parent nominations, and the existence of criteria for alternative methods of
identification, inequities in the referrals of African American students to Gifted and
Talented Educational programs continue to persist.
These inequities are further exacerbated by the inability of current assessment
methodologies used to identify giftedness, and the design of many Gifted and Talented
Education programs impedes the access of many African American students to such
programs. According to Griggs et al. (2009), the MI Theory developed by Gardner
(1983, 2006, 2011) is based on the understanding that people learn utilizing different
types of intelligences. This means that individual learning varies across a platform of
human potentialities in which differences stemming from bio-psychological and cultural
factors affect people’s skill sets and even abilities (McFarlane, 2011). Haley (2004)
supported the application and suitability of multiple intelligences in shaping and
informing instructional strategies, curricula development, and alternative forms of
assessments in minority students. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences holds that the
power and potential for educators to develop flexible and broad methodologies and
approaches to address culturally and linguistically diverse audiences with differing skill
sets and potentials (McFarlane, 2011) is crucial in the process to better identify giftedness
in African American students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was twofold. One purpose was to examine the impact
of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) on teacher attitudes,
perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness. The second purpose assessed the referral of
African American students to Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs.
6
Research Questions
This study was guided by four primary research questions:
1. What are the district criteria for the referral of students to Gifted and Talented
Education programs?
2. Are there differences in the conceptions of referral criteria of teachers with training in
MI Theory and teachers without training in MI Theory?
3. Are there differences in the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness in teachers
with training in MI Theory vs. teachers without training in MI Theory?
4. How do cultural factors impact teacher perceptions of giftedness in African American
students, in teachers with training in MI Theory vs. teachers without training in MI
Theory, and in the referral of African American students to Gifted and Talented
Education programs?
Significance of the Study
The historic and pervasive disproportional representation of African American
students in gifted and talented programs continues to loom as a quiet crisis in the field of
gifted and talented education. A review of the current literature supports the need for
further research focused on improving educational structures that support talent
development and identification of giftedness in African American students. Research has
indicated contributing factors in underrepresentation to be ineffective identification
practices, barriers to the screening process, teacher perceptions, bias in test instruments,
and dissonance in understanding cultural learning styles. Conventional gifted and
talented programs are generally not designed to address the different qualities and
experiences of students from culturally diverse backgrounds (Baldwin, 2002).
7
Bonner (2001) argued that contemplating the attributes of intelligent behavior
necessitates a consideration of the validity in the relationship between cultural context
and situational factors. Gallagher (2002) further postulated that standard frames of
assessments of giftedness tend to hinder the emergence of students’ abilities from under-
identified student population groups because of the emphasis on aptitude skills. In
support of alternative pathways of identifying giftedness, Naglieri and Ford (2005)
asserted that if the characterization of gifted children as academically advanced
individuals rather than generally of high ability continued, then the phenomenon of the
underrepresentation of gifted minority students would continue to persist. Failure of the
educational community to address underrepresentation constitutes educational
malpractice with regard to the squandered and untapped potential of African American
students.
Definition of Key Terms
Throughout the review of the literature, the terminology for various concepts was
found to be used interchangeably. To mitigate this occurrence and to provide a unified
context for synthesis of the information, the following definitions are used in the context
of this study and throughout this review:
African American or Black: Persons who indicate their race as “Black or Negro”
or reported entries such as African American, Afro American, Black Puerto Rican,
Jamaican, Nigerian, West Indian, or Haitian” (National Center for Education Statistics,
2009).
Cultural discontinuity: Where the cultural value-based learning and
communication preferences – those typically generating from home and parent
8
socialization – are disassociated with school and are void or discontinued within the
educational process (Tyler et al., 2008).
Culturally responsive teaching: The pedagogical approach used by teachers to
teach subject matter in meaningful ways and to better engage students in learning (Gay,
2000).
Cognitive style: Consistencies and patterns in the way that information is
processed by an individual and developed along with one’s personality traits (Merriam,
Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). They are reflected in how individuals typically
receive and process information (Joughin, 1992).
Evaluation or screening: The testing process used to identify students for
placement into Gifted and Talent Education programs (McBee, 2006).
Hemispheric asymmetry: The dichotomous view that the brain is divided into two
distinct apparatuses, each capable of cognitive processing independently in some degree
from one another; these hemispheres are clearly different in function (Bogan, 1972).
Learning styles: The way individuals concentrate on, process, internalize, and
retain new and difficult information (Burk & Dunn, 2003).
Referral and nomination: The process of designating a student as potentially
gifted (McBee, 2006).
Underrepresentation: The disproportionate placement or identification of
minority students into special programs such as gifted education in percentages lower
than the overall student population (De Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi, & Park, 2006).
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature presents historical and contemporary perspectives of
intelligence focusing on traditional and multifactor approaches. The federal definition of
giftedness is reviewed along with the impact of Howard Gardner’s (1983, 2006, 2011)
Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI Theory), and its role in gifted and talented
education is described. The emergence of the study of neuroscience and education and
its impact on understanding the brain function and learning process are also discussed.
Further review of the literature presents the role of culture in the learning processes and
its impact on the conceptualization and definitions of giftedness. The final section of the
literature review presents issues that impact the representational inequities of African
American students in Gifted and Talented Education programs.
Documentation of the Literature Search
Initial search of the literature focused on the concepts of Neuroscience,
Intelligence, and Culture and Learning. A chart of key terms was created for each of the
concept areas. From the chart, various search strings were created using the Boolean
terms or, and, & not. Initial literature was retrieved through searches from databases
which included ERIC (EBSCOHOST). Subsequent and advanced searches used First
Search, JSTOR, Medline, Proquest, and PsychInfo. A refinement of the search using
combinations of keywords and the creation of new search strings utilizing thesaurus
10
terms helped to retrieve more relevant results. These results were further narrowed in
some instances with the term African American and Gifted. Depending on the nature of
the search results, initial search requests were limited to the period between 2000 and
2010 with results for peer reviewed journals. Reference lists were also retrieved for
seminal studies and prominent researchers in the field supporting the underrepresentation
of African Americans in gifted education programs.
Although a significant volume of research exists on the topic of gifted education,
overall, a relatively small portion of the literature focuses on the underrepresentation of
African American students in gifted and talented education programs (see for example,
Bernal, 2000; Ford, 1996; Ford & Grantham, 2003, Reis & Small, 2005). Most of the
literature on the underrepresentation of African American students in gifted and talented
education programs is limited to the perspectives of a small group of researchers.
Theories of Intelligence
Intelligence can be viewed in many ways. Psychometric intelligence which can
be traced to the French psychologist, Alfred Binet, has a long history of misuse in the
service of racist analyses of claimed lesser intelligence for certain groups. The debate
has continued as noted in the work of Viens, Chen, and Gardner (1997):
Since the turn of the century, psychometric intelligence has been defended and
disputed; it is the theory upon which some have built and against which others
have reacted, and it continues to play a significant role in the intelligence
discourse. (p. 122)
Intelligence is the act of processing information in a way that enables an
individual to solve problems and create products or strategies that allows successful
function in a particular situation (Caine & Caine, 1994; Feuerstein, 1982; Gardner, 2000).
Learning happens when the brain makes connections among experiences. According to
11
Caine and Caine, the brain naturally constructs meaning when it perceives relationships;
and these relevant and meaningful connections motivate the brain to be focused and
engaged. Intelligence and learning are based on meaning that is constructed from
information from receptive functions such as reading, talking, listening, and observing
and then communicated through expressive functions such as talking, moving, and
writing. The thinking processes involved is referred to as cognition (Costa, 1985).
The construct of intelligence is conceptualized by various theories. According to
Jones (2005), “Theories are statements circumscribed by definitions about objects and
their relationships that are implicit in a body of knowledge” (p. 162). Definitions of
intelligence theory are framed by one’s philosophical perspective as to whether
intelligence is defined as a natural phenomenon that is fixed and genetically predisposed
or an abstract entity with multiple properties. There are primarily two ways that
individual differences in intelligence are conceptualized: general intelligence (or g factor)
and multiple factors (Embretson & Schmidt Mcollam, 2009). Theories of intelligence
include both traditional and contemporary perspectives.
Historical Perspectives and Assessment of Intelligence
In 1912, the German psychologist Wilhelm Stern devised the intelligence
quotient, or IQ which represents the ratio of one’s mental age to one’s chronological age
as measured by intelligence tests (Baum, Viens, & Slatin, 2005). Alfred Binet conducted
research at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (Denig,
2007) and is credited with developing a practical instrument for identifying “intelligent”
individuals for military service. Charles Spearman, an early psychologist and statistician,
is credited with developing the factor analysis technique which extends Binet’s work to
12
include an influence of s or a specific ability, combined with g to determine general
intelligence. Spearman and Binet are representative of early researchers who sought to
understand the nature of intelligence, and they defined it as a unitary construct (Merriam
et al., 2007).
A multiple factor approach to intelligence posits that intelligence is comprised of
multiple factors of intellectual ability. This approach includes Cattell, Horn, and
Carroll’s Human Cognitive Ability Theory (Keith & Reynolds, 2010). Floyd, Keith,
Taub, & McGrew (2007) described this theory as a hierarchical framework of cognitive
abilities that vary according to level of generality: narrow abilities (stratum I), broad
abilities (stratum II), and g (stratum III). These factors are believed to be distinct yet
related. According to Jones (2005), “Fluid intelligence is considered to be a person’s
biologically based capacity for reasoning and memory, while crystallized intelligence is
the knowledge and skills acquired through experience and learning” (p. 1).
During the 20th century, intelligence was mainly identified by the tests used to
measure it such as the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Scales. According to Naglieri and
Kaufman (2001), a considerable amount of research has been conducted during the last
50 years that examined specific abilities beyond the traditional assessments introduced by
Wechsler and Binet in the early 1900s. This cognitive revolution provided important
foundational research for redefining intelligence and resulted in magnifying the need to
identify alternatives to traditional IQ tests and the identification of giftedness.
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
Contemporary theories of intelligence are more complex, acknowledging that
previous theories tended to be limited in scope. Theorists who advocated that the basic
13
nature of intelligence be viewed multi-dimensionally, most often viewed intelligence as a
combination of biological, psychological, social, cultural, life experiences, and
environmental factors (Merriam et al., 2007). These theorists argued that intelligence
consists of multiple domains and may be conceived as interaction among these domains.
New approaches that are representative of contemporary theories include Sternberg’s
Triarchic Theory (Sternberg, 1988), Ceci’s Biological Approach (Ceci, 1990), and
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011).
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory. Sternberg’s (1988) Triarchic Theory proposed
three sub-theories of componential, experiential, and contextual intelligence. Each sub-
theory refers to information processing mechanisms through which individuals exhibit
intelligent behavior (Merriam et al., 2007). According to Sternberg (1985), the
componential sub-theory identifies the underlying processes of behaviors in which
individuals engage to align with the environment. The experiential sub-theory focuses on
the role of experience in defining intelligence. The contextual sub-theory treats
intelligent activity in relation to a particular environmental context. Sternberg (1988)
further posited three central processes: knowledge-acquisition used when learning new
tasks, performance components used for problem-solving and task completion, and
metacognitive components used in planning and evaluating task performance. How
successful a person can use these three different intelligences is not only a result
of simply having high intelligence in one or more of these three domains, but success also
depends on how well they are balanced against each other. Through metacognition, an
individual decides what mode of thinking is appropriate under certain conditions
(Lombardi, 2008).
14
Ceci’s Biological Approach. Steven Ceci’s (1990) Bioecological Approach
represents the contextualist view of intelligence which focuses on dimensions outside of
the individual as crucial to intelligence, such as school, other people, and technological
resources. Ceci argued against general intelligence, claiming that low-level mental
processing is affected by knowledge and experience. The key elements of Ceci’s
bioecological approach include cognitive processes knowledge domain, cognitive
complexity, and IQ. According to Ceci:
Cognitive processes are mental processing mechanisms that constrain an

individual’s intelligence. Knowledge refers to rules information, and the like
that are garnered through cognitive processes. A domain is a set of organized
knowledge (juggling computer programming and carpentry are domains of
knowledge). Domains organize “bits” of knowledge, which can be part of
different domains. Cognitive complexity refers to an individual’s ability to
engage cognitive processes efficiently within knowledge structures.
IQ is a score derived from an intelligence test, and is a measure of only one

type of intelligence. (p. 115)
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Howard Gardner’s Theory of
Multiple Intelligences (MI) supports the belief that there exists a plurality of intelligences
and ways of knowing and processing information. The global 21st century society
demands that people embrace their differences. According to McFarlane (2011), MI
Theory offers the opportunity to develop perspectives, selves, and institutions by
allowing people to recognize and appreciate the expanse of human skills and abilities.
Gardner posited that intelligence originates biologically; however, it does not suggest that
intelligence is purely genetic or inherited (Baum et al., 2005). MI Theory established an
important link between behavioral psychology and the psychometrics of individual
differences implicit in defining intelligence. Gardner related general principals of
psychology to brain systems, with theories of how people differ in terms of cognitive
15
processing. Gardner (2000) defined intelligence as being the “bio-psychological
potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
problems, or create products that are of value in a culture” (pp. 33-34). Gardner (2011)
identified nine intelligences: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily
Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalist, and Existential. A brief descriptor of
each intelligence follows (McFarlane, 2011):
Linguistic Intelligence – reflects the capacity to use and manipulate the structures
of language.
Logical Mathematical Intelligence – describes the capacity to use numbers,

understanding numeric relationships, quantities, and patterns.
Musical Intelligence – describes the capacity to think in musical terms, to hear

and recognize patterns, perceptive in musical tones, pitch, and rhythm.
Interpersonal Intelligence-refers to the ability to perceive and make distinctions in

the moods and understanding of others.
Intrapersonal Intelligence – refers to self-knowledge, and to have good knowledge

of who you are, and what you want.
Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence - refers to the capacity to use your body to express
ideas. This includes physical talents such as athletics, and performing.
Spatial Intelligence – describes the ability to perceive the visual-spatial world,

with strong spatial orientation.
Naturalist Intelligence – reflects a sensitivity to discriminate among living things,

and demonstrates a natural sensitivity to nature and natural phenomena.
Exisential – reflects sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about

human existence, such as the meaning of life. (p. 2)
Beyond the descriptions of the nine intelligences, Armstrong (2011) found key theoretical
underpinnings to Gardner’s model as being the fact that each person possesses all nine
intelligences, most people can develop each intelligence to an adequate level, these
intelligences work together in complex ways, and there are many ways to be intelligent
16
within each category or domain. Armstrong further stated that “the theory of multiple
intelligences is a cognitive model that seeks to describe how individuals use their
intelligence” (p. 10).
Neuroscience and Evidence of the Learning Process
Cognitive Neuroscience
In 1973, using computed tomography (CT), a computerized three dimensional
picture of the brain was displayed; and scientists could see the brain for the first time.
The study of the brain and the processes involved in learning continues to expand and has
united the fields of education and neuroscience. This is significant for educators to know,
in that everything a child sees, hears, thinks, or touches transfers in an electrical activity
that is stored into the synapses of the brain (Wasserman, 2007). Today, greater
understanding has been gained through the integrated study of neurology, psychology,
and biology. This discipline, known as neuroscience, is broadly defined by Goswami
(2004) as “the study of the processes by which the brain learns, and remembers, from the
molecular and cellular levels to the brain system” (p. 1).
Cognitive neuroscience uses imaging technology to make determinations and to
seek answers to specific questions about the brain at work. Through this work, the
understanding about complex processes involving speech, language, memory, thinking,
reading, and mathematics has increased (Goswami, 2004; Rushton & Larkin, 2001;
Wasserman, 2007). Neuroimaging studies have indicated that cognitive tests cause
changes within neural activity and blood flow in the brain (Chiao et al., 2009; Friskhoff,
2007).
17
Cognitive neuroscientists monitor and measure changes in the cerebral cortex via
two broad methods known as structural and functional scans (Merriam et al., 2007).
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) relies on the injection of a radioactive tracer to
determine localization of function. This method is not suitable for children. The
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) measures changes in blood oxygen
levels and is not invasive (Goswami, 2004). The FMRI can be used with children;
however, there may be distracters that impact a child’s attention, which may have a
negative impact on the results.
Brain Structures and Functions
The brain is a complex system comprised of trillions of cells that link to neurons
in networks that produce intelligence, creativity, consciousness, emotion, and memory.
Goswami (2004) indicated that there are major subdivisions of the cerebral cortex, with
each of these lobes being specialized for variant functions. The frontal lobe plans,
reasons, and controls the ability for speech and reactive emotions. The temporal lobe
mainly governs memory, audition, and language and object recognition. The parietal
lobe controls the sense of touch and supports spatial processing and perception. The
occipital lobe is functionalized for vision. Other structures such as the hippocampus and
the amygdale are internal to the brain (Goswami, 2004).
The brain is a vibrant organism that is ever changing with each new experience.
Researchers (Diamond, 1996; Scheibel, 1996; Wolf & Brandt, 1988) found in the
dendrite fireworks theory that humans can literally grow their brains when they learn
something new. This new learning creates new dendrites and neural connections. The
most basic instrument for learning is called a neurodevelopmental function (Levin, 2002).
18
According to Levine’s model of learning, this neurodevelopmental function may provide
a framework for understanding why some children struggle in school. In this model,
there are eight neurodevelopmental constructs that are vital to effective learning:
attention, memory, language, spatial ordering, sequential ordering, the motor system,
higher thinking, and social thinking (Levin, 2003; Spagna, 2006). According to Levin,
these eight neurodevelopmental constructs work together to support a healthy
neurodevelopmental system and academic success. Levin further noted that the
neurodevelopmental profile of students may be influenced by factors such as genes,
stress, emotions, and culture.
Contemporary Research on Hemispheric
Laterization, Preference, and Learning
Hemispheric Dominance and Preference
Research on cognitive style preference among students has shown strong
relationship between learning style preference and hemispheric dominance (Smith-
Stevens, 2009). “Dominance preferences in relation to the brain, eyes, ears hands, and
feet evolve through environmental and daily programming influences” (Smith-Stevens,
2009, p. 41). A dominance profile is a personal assessment technique that provides
information about how humans receive and process new learning experiences.
Venegopal and Mridula (2007) identified hemisphericity dominance by studying
hemispheric function, learning and thinking styles, and hemispheric preference. Their
sample consisted of 250 students (male and female) from five English Medium schools.
Results found a difference in the styles of learning and thinking among the students.
According to the researchers:
19
Children who preferred right hemisphere for information processing were more
‘content preferred’ in learning style and ‘creative’ in thinking style. Those
students who preferred left hemisphere for information processing were more
‘verbal’ in their learning style and ‘convergent and divergent’ in their thinking
style. (p. 116)
Kunjufu (2002) and Shade (1992) described verbal, visual, and spatial processing
attributes of cerebral functioning as “left brain” or “right brain. The term “right-brained
learners” has been used to describe preferred learning styles for African American
students (Kunjufu, 2002). Some of these preferences include a desire for strong oral
experiences, creative thinking, and strong interpersonal connectedness (Hilliard, 1989;
Shade, 1989). As educators utilize the results of scientific study of the brain, Ramirez
(1989) stated, “The greatest care must be taken to use the concepts as tools for growth
and individuation and to avoid their use as labels or stereotypes” (p. 5). Ann Dirkes
(1985) of the education division at Indiana University-Purdue University stated, “An
opportunity escapes us if we do not use the creative process to promote academic
achievement in a meaningful way” (p. 818).
The Brain and Learning
Rushton and Larkin (2001) postulated that each region of the brain consists of a
highly sophisticated neurological network of cells, dendrites, and nerves that interconnect
one portion of the brain with another. Learning does not occur as separated and isolated
events in the brain; all parts work together. The role of experience is vital in wiring the
brain for continued growth and development. According to research by Bradford,
Brown, and Cocking (2008), the development of neural patterns in the brain that occur
20
during learning seems to make the nerve cells more efficient and powerful. These
findings suggest that the brain is a dynamic organ shaped to a great extent by experience,
and qualitative differences exist among various types of learning experiences.
Wolfe and Nevills (2008) further substantiated this work and indicated that
learning is a process of building neural networks. Over the lifespan. many networks are
constructed through concrete experiences, representational or symbolic learning, and
abstract learning. Teachers must be cognizant of their role in providing learning
opportunities and hands-on experiences that stimulate various regions of the brain and
reinforce stronger associations of meaning which make learning relevant, meaningful,
and interesting (Rushton & Larkin, 2001).
Neuroscience and Education
The field of cognitive neuroscience holds great promise for educators, predicated
on the fact that the information received from the neuroimaging is used ethically and
scientifically to support the development of more effective teaching practices which
empirically lead to greater learning. Studies have shown that through targeted
remediation support in phonological skills, letter-sound correlation, and letter sound
conversion, activity in the left temporal and parietal area appears to be normalized
(Simons, 2002; Temple, 2003). Results from these studies show that the neural systems
problems can be pinpointed and remediated early (Goswami, 2006).
This relatively new field of cognitive neuroscience may serve as a bridge between
neuroscience and education (Rushton & Larkin, 2001). Zambo and Zambo (2011)
stated:
Those of us who teach educational psychology know it is our job to help teachers
understand how students think, learn, and feel and today this information is
21
intertwined with neuroscience. The work of educational psychologists is to help
teachers think critically, use valid information from both educational psychology
and neuroscience, and sort out fallacies from facts. (p. 38)
Goswami (2004) referenced the term “neuromyth”, which cautions against
misinformation with regard to neuroscience and what it can offer to education. Goswami
addressed three pervasive myths about neuroscience in education: (a) the lay belief in a
holistic dichotomous approach to hemispheric differences (left-brain vs. right-brain
learning, (b) the notions that the brain is plastic or malleable for learning only during
certain critical times, and (c) effective interventions must be aligned with periods of
synaptogenisus (growth of axions, synapses, and dendrites).
Regarding the first neuromyth, this oversimplification and over-generalization
lays in the fact that there are hemispheric specializations in terms of localization of
functions (Bogan, 1972; Boles, Barth, & Merrill, 2007; Dean, 1984). However, there are
massive cross hemisphere connections in the normal brain; and both hemispheres work
together in every cognitive task (Goswami, 2004).
The second neuromyth is debunked, according to research (Boles et al., 2007;
Dean, 1984) in that optimal periods for certain types of learning clearly exist, but they are
sensitive rather than critical. Learning continues well into adulthood, specifically self-
directed learning (Merriam et al., 2007).
In addressing the third neuromyth and synaptogenisus, according to Goswami
(2004), any kind of environmental stimulation causes the brain to form new connections.
Wolfe and Brandt (1998) indicated that the brain changes physiologically as a result of
experiences. As a child experiences events for the first time, either new dendrites are
22
formed, or an association is made with a similar or past event, connecting new
information to old understanding.
In validation of the evolving field of cognitive neuroscience, these myths need to
be eliminated. As stated by Goswami (2004), “The dominance of these myths obscures
the important strides being made by cognitive neuroscience in many areas, relative to
education” (p. 3).
Neuroscience discoveries have disproved assumptions of how students learn.
Having little or no knowledge of the way the brain functions in relation to learning is not
beneficial to the education of students. In seeking ways to increase the representation of
gifted African American students in Gifted and Talented Educational programs,
educators can incorporate strategies based on cognitive neuroscience and brain-based
learning to make the most of the educational experience for the student (Wasserman,
2007). Rushton and Larkin (2001) supported this premise and stated, “The
neuroscientist’s job is to better understand the workings of the mind and the brain; it is
our job, as educators, to carefully sift through their findings and connect them to what we
know empirically about how children learn best” (p. 32).
Culture and African American Students’ Learning
Teacher reactions to cultural differences among students can be manifested in
various ways, and they can exert a powerful influence in educational settings (Ford et al.,
2002). Milnor and Ford (2007) highlighted the fact that it is critical that teachers
understand how culture works among their students, how they address the various
cultures represented in their classrooms, how they make decisions for student learning,
and how they perceive giftedness among their students.
23
Culture and Learning
Culture, as described by Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba (1991), is a dynamic system
of social values, cognitive codes, behavioral standards, world views, and beliefs used to
order the lives of others. Everyone has a culture, and it mediates all learning. It is the
lens through which all learning is filtered (Denbo, Lynson, & Beaulieu, 2002). The role
of culture in human sociocognitive functioning was not fully recognized in the social
sciences until the mid-20th century (American Psychological Association, 2003; Rogoff,
2003). Subsequently in psychology, educational psychology in particular, the role of
culture began to be viewed as a major shaper of mental processes. Research and studies
conducted by Vygotsky (1962, 1978) were instrumental in helping educators to
understand the relationship between task performance and one’s cultural values.
Reversing underachievement of culturally diverse students involves recognizing
the impact of culture on cognition. Prior experiences that students bring to school happen
within their sociocultural environment (Jackson, 2001). When teachers fail to make links
between cultural references and build understanding, what Draschen (1982) described as
an “affective filter” develops. This induces stress, which impacts levels of learning. This
stress prevents input from reaching those parts of the brain responsible for acquiring
language, thereby restricting how meaning is constructed (Delpit, 1995).
Culture also affects a learner’s motivation at a deeper level. Besides searching for
relationships, the brain depends on cultural references when attaching relevance or
meaning to an item or event (Feuerstein, 1982; Sheets, 2009). Students need
opportunities to share or express what is relevant and meaningful, and this sharing
24
requires an environment where relationships between the teacher and student are built on
mutual respect for cultural differences and similarities.
Culture and Cognitive Style
Educational researchers have suggested that the academic challenges faced by
many ethnic minority students are linked to perceived cultural discontinuity between
home learning and school based experiences (Boykin & Miller, 2005; Gay, 2000; Nieto,
1999). Some have argued that American schools are designed for left-brain thinkers and
that African Americans are right-brained thinkers, and this problem has been a
contributing factor to the achievement gap (Kunjufu, 2002).
Discussions of culture, learning, and cognitive styles are essential to
understanding how African American children learn (Boykin & Miller, 2005; Gay, 2000;
Shade, 1989; Tileston & Darling, 2008). Madhere’s definition of culture (as cited by
Durodoye & Hildreth,1997) is defined as “a group’s preferred way of perceiving,
judging, and organizing the ideas, situations and events they encounter in their daily
lives” (p. 9). Guidelines used by individuals to select information to which they attend
and interpret given information are also determined by culture. It is only natural to
assume that culture would affect how children learn (Durodoye & Hildreth, 1997).
Cognitive styles refer to an internal manner of processing information.
Individuals have unique cognitive patterns for learning new and difficult information
(Reinemann & Ellison, 2004). Willis (1989) reviewed Afrocentric psychology literature
in relation to African American children and compiled characteristics of African
American cognitive styles into four categories:
1. Social/Affective: people-oriented, emphasis on affective domain, social

interaction is crucial, social learning is common.
25
2. Harmonious: interdependence and harmonic/communal aspects of people and
environment are respected and encouraged; knowledge is sought for practical,
utilitarian, and relevant purposes; holistic approaches; synthesis is sought.
3. Expressive creativity: creative, adaptive, variable, novel, stylistic, intuitive,

simultaneous stimulation is preferred; verve, oral expression.
4. Nonverbal: nonverbal communication is important (intonation, body language,

etc.), movement and rhythm components are vital. (p. 54)
Cognitive styles are important because they are one of the education-relevant
expressions of individuality in every student (Joyce & Weil, 2000). Moreover, individual
differences allow freedom of expression in a variety of cultures. “Individually, our
configurations give us our personal identities; together, they also exemplify the richness
of our culture” (Joyce & Weil, 2000, p. 245). Rovai, Gallien, and Wighting (2005)
supported the work of Gay (2000), noting that the academic environment facilitates
cultural connections identified through linking communications as a significant element
in the teaching and learning process. This direct link to learning enhances students’
experience in the classroom, especially students of color. A deep understanding of both
culture and cognitive style differences is important for all educators, although the subject
must be addressed carefully, as there are variations to cognitive style within ethnic and
cultural groups (Tomes, 2008). There continues to be an urgent need to address the
balance between uniformity and diversity within schools, because the current imbalance
in educational outcomes is seriously damaging too many learners and teachers. This is
important not only with regard to current levels of accountability, but also from a sense of
moral imperative. Denbo et al. (2002) stated, “Remediating a deficit rather than teaching
the desired skill through [cultural referents], is unfortunately the norm in most schools”
(p. 106).
26
African American Learners’ Learning Styles
One reason minority students are likely to encounter more problems in schools
than mainstream students involves incomplete knowledge of minority students’ learning
and communication styles. Banks (2006) and Pewewardy (2008) emphasized that
minority students differ in the ways they learn and communicate. Differences in learning
styles can often be explained by cultural norms and values. Various specialists in
educating different cultural groups (Banks, 2006; Gollnick & Chinn, 2009) emphasized
how students from different cultures learn differently. The National Task Force of
Learning Style and Brain Behavior defined Learning Style as:
That consistent pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual

approaches educational experiences. It is the composite of characteristic
cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable
indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning
environment. It is formed in a deep structure of neural organization and
personality which molds, and is molded by human development and the cultural
experiences of home, school, and society. (Keefe & Monk, 1989, p. 1)
When discussing African American students and learning styles, it is important to
note that holistic generalizations about the learning styles of all African American
students is improper. However discussions of “culture” and “learning styles” are
essential to understanding various dynamics of how African American children learn
most effectively (Shade, 1992). Durodoye and Hildreth (1997) posited that as teachers
consider the available information on learning styles, they must first be cognizant of their
own learning styles, and second they must keep in mind that learning style information
simply provides alternative insights about the student whose culture is different. They
further indicated that ultimately improving academic outcomes for African American
27
students will include diverse teaching approaches and learning styles and encourage
greater ethnic minority participation in the classroom.
The questions as to if there is an African American learning style has been
extensively studied and reviewed in the literature for over the past three decades by
Harvard University Professor, Wade Boykin. Boykin (1994) identified overarching
cultural characteristics of African American learners:
Movement and Verve - A strong need to be actively involved and mobile;

psycho-motor preferences
Oral Traditions - A strong preference for oral modes of communication
Communalism - Interdependence; prefers to work collaborative, or in social

groupings
Affective - Values emotion and feelings; expresses themselves easily (p. 41)
Willis (1989) defined learning style “as a way of perceiving, conceptualizing and
problem solving; a preferred way of interacting with and responding to the environment”
(p. 271). Using the African (Collectivist/Communal) and the European (Individualistic)
world views as a basis for research, some theorists believe that African-American
children generally learn more successfully in ways characterized by harmony,
cooperation, affect, and socialization (Boykin, 1994; Willis, 1989). According to Willis,
to increase the [academic] success rate of African American children, educators should
construct more methods of teaching that align with the African (Collectivist/Communal)
world view. Because African-American children move through the world with a
different driving force, they are placed at a clear disadvantage in an educational system
that may be antithetical to their own world view (Willis, 1989). It is further argued by
Willis (1989) that this cultural influence may indeed affect the learning style of African
28
American students. Teachers must examine their own teaching styles and understand the
learning styles of their students without making generalizations. Teachers tend to teach
the way they learned unless deliberately challenged to teach otherwise (Bennett 2007).
Rather than assume that a child from a given group has a particular learning style, they
must use observation and personal interactions with the student to determine the child’s
best means of accomplishing a task (Morgan, 2010).
Cultural Discontinuity: Home and School Connections
According to Williams (2006), educators in the United States have traditionally
expected students to leave their cultures at the school house door. He further postulated
that, seemingly, education’s goal has been to settle differences and create a one-culture
society that reflects the majority culture. A body of research exists that provides a
framework for understanding and addressing gaps in academic achievement between
Whites and African American and other minority students (Gay, 2000; Parsons, Travis,
and Simpson, 2005; Tyler et al., 2008). This research addresses the cultural
incongruencies of the current educational system with the cultures of the ethnically and
linguistically diverse students within our schools.
Researchers and educators (Gay, 2000; Kunjufu, 2002) postulated that there are
cultural disconnects between the traditional European structures of American schools and
the culturally rich backgrounds of the diverse students entering classrooms. Ogbu (1982)
suggested that all students experience home and school discontinuities throughout their
schooling experience; however, such discrepancies are considered more pronounced for
ethnic minority students (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995, Nieto, 1999).
29
Ethnocentric monoculturalism, proposed initially by Sue (2004), provides the
theoretical framework for the study of cultural discontinuity. She defined ethnocentric
monoculturalism as “the individual, institutional, and cultural expression of the
superiority of one group’s cultural heritage (i.e., its values, language, customs and
practices) over another, combined with the power to impose those standards” (p. 71).
Sue and Sue (2003) postulated that the cultural heritage of the dominant group typically
pervades mainstream institutions, programs, policies, and structures. One of these
institutions is the public school. Many believe that the curriculum and/or classroom
practices and norms to which ethnic minority students are exposed at school reflect
mainstream cultural values rooted in Western or European worldviews. (American
Psychological Association, 2003; Gay, 2000; Nieto, 1999; Sue, 2004).
This dissonance between home and school and the cessation of specific cultural
value-based behaviors, in conjunction with conformity toward mainstream cultural
norms, all precede the academic difficulties faced by many ethnic minority students (Gay,
2000). In many cases, this results in what some African American youth have termed as,
“selling out”, “acting White”, or being called the degrading name of an “Oreo cookie”
(Black on the outside but White on the inside).
According to Tyler et al. (2008), this disjuncture involves several processes that
result in this phenomenon. First, from birth, children are socialized in their specific
cultural contexts, where certain values and communication styles are salient (Rogoff,
2003; Vygotsky, 1978). This socialization determines how the child will engage in
cognitive, behavior, or emotional tasks.
30
The development of cognitive skills happens in the cultural context (Vygotsky,
1978) and is the students’ behavioral manifestations of their home-based cultural values
within the classroom (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Given the link between culture and
cognitive development, it is likely that many ethnic minority students bring their home-
based cultural values to the classroom setting (Gay, 2000; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky,
1978). Once ethnic minority students enter the classroom, it is explicitly or implicitly
communicated that their culturally informed behaviors are not conducive to optimal
learning and are consequently discouraged by teachers and administrators.
Subsequently, the students make a conscious or unconscious decision to adhere to
sanctioned classroom rules regarding appropriate “learning” behaviors or maintain
preference of the culture-based behaviors they brought to school and are inherent to
whom they are (Tyler et al., 2008). In a study by Sheets (1996), elementary school
teachers serving predominantly African American students reported feeling pressure to
maintain controlled, quiet classrooms where students work by themselves. Sheets
concluded that teachers in the study felt that these practices and learning conditions were
optimal for student learning. Similar findings have been reported in the literature
(Boykin & Miller, 2005; Boykin, Tyler, Watkins-Lewis, & Kizzie, 2006; Tyler et al.,
2008).
Cultural Misperceptions and Learning
Culture was and continues to be a major influence in cognitive development
(American Psychological Association, 2003; Sue, 2004). It has been linked to cognitive
and behavioral tasks done in formal contexts such as public school classrooms (Rogoff,
2003). Milnor and Ford (2007) asserted that culture encompasses the “informal
31
experiences, knowledge, dispositions, skills, and ways of knowing and understanding that
are formed by race, ethnicity, identity, class, sexuality, and gender” (p. 168). According
to Murrell (2002), there is cultural integrity to the African American educational
experience that is missing in contemporary public schooling. The lack of cultural and
multicultural competence among teachers seems to contribute particularly to the
disproportionately lower numbers of students of color represented in GATE programs.
Milnor and Ford indicated that, in short, a central reason that some students of color are
not represented in gifted programs is due to cultural differences and misunderstandings
that often exist between teachers and students. Ford (1996) stated the following:
Cultural styles and orientations represent patterns learned at an early age, as one
grows up in a given family and community context. As individuals move out of
the context of the primary socialization, they respond to new situations with
previously learned cultural behaviors and styles....for [diverse learners] such a
new situation may include being placed in a gifted program where teachers and
school personnel may not understand their cultural styles and orientation. (p. 85)
Reactions to differences among students manifest themselves in various ways,
and they exert a powerful influence in educational settings. Boykin (1994) and others
studied the cultural styles of African American students, noting characteristics of verve,
mobility, oral tradition, communalism, spirituality, or affect. According to Ford et al.
(2002), deficit thinking can exacerbate misunderstandings and create misperceptions of
these cultural characteristics. As such, Ford et al. indicated that kinesthetic preferences
may be misperceived as hyperactivity; an affective orientation may be misperceived as
immature or emotional; communalism may be misperceived at social dependency; and a
strong preference for oral communication may be misperceived as frankness or bluntness.
Sue and Sue (2003) believed that the cultural heritage of Western European
mainstream values dominates the values espoused in public schools and perpetuates
32
ethnocentric monoculturalism which promotes the superiority of one group’s cultural
heritage (language, values, customs, and practices). This deficit perspective perpetuates
cultural misperceptions. According to Sternberg (2005), when cultural context is
considered, ( a) individuals are better recognized for and are better able to use their
talents, (b) schools teach and assess children better, and (c) society utilizes rather than
wastes the talents of its members.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
According to Gay (2000), culturally responsive pedagogy can be defined as using
the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of
ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for
them. It teaches to and through the strengths of students. It is culturally validating and
affirming (p. 29). Current educators and advocates of educational reform stress that
closing the achievement gap may need to focus on helping educators understand more
about the dynamics of normal human development in varied cultural contexts (Williams,
2006).
Wheeler (2007) suggested that the teachers’ use of culturally responsive literacy
instructional practices supported the communication styles and literacy development of
the African American male students in the study. The culturally responsive strategies and
approaches selected by teachers during literacy instruction reflected concern for aspects
of their students’ lives.
According to Williams (2006), valuing cultural diversity implies understanding
the role of culture in the learning process and using culturally relevant teaching to utilize
the cultural strengths of learners—their knowledge, experiences, interests, and skills.
33
Educational researchers and practitioners who support culturally responsive teaching and
learning believe that to teach subject matter in meaningful ways and to better engage
students in learning, teachers need to know about the students’ lives, including their
family composition, immigration history, student concerns, and student strengths. More
importantly, teachers should be aware of their students’ perceptions of the value of school
knowledge, their experiences with different subject matter, and how they relate to their
daily life experiences (Gay, 2000).
Being culturally responsive begins with the teacher becoming more culturally
conscious. Cole (2001) identified the key elements that are essential for teachers to
embrace in order to develop parallel structures to better understand the impact of culture
on learning (see Appendix A).
Scholars continue to work toward improving pedagogy. Bartolome (1994)
decried the search for the “right” teaching strategies and argued for a “humanizing
pedagogy that respects and uses the reality, history, and perspectives of students as an
integral part of educational practice” (p. 173). Ladson-Billings (1992) built on these
constructs, yet insisted that through culturally relevant pedagogy, students must
experience academic success.
Conceptualizations of Giftedness
Articulating accurate and yet succinct definitions and thus conceptualizations of
gifted and talented individuals has challenged theorists, researchers, and practitioners for
decades. Furthermore, according to Mrazik and Dombrowski (2009), the terms
giftedness, talent, creativity, and genius have often been used interchangeably in the
literature to refer to exceptional individuals.
34
The term “giftedness” must be framed in relative terms. According to Louis,
Subotnik, Smith, Breland, and Lewis (2000), “a gifted person is one who possesses
‘more’ of some valued quality than most others. The relative question becomes more of
what?” (p. 302). The response depends on one’s basic belief regarding the nature of
ability. The nature-nurture debate has assumed a center role in the arguments
surrounding the origins of giftedness. A body of research implicates the role of heredity
in certain aspects of gifted cognitive ability (Posthuma, DeGeus, & Boomsma, 2001;
Thompson, Cannon, & Toga, 2002). The opposing view challenged this assumption and
argued that gifted abilities are more a product of effort and deliberate practice (Bloom,
1985; Erricson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). These opposing perspectives of gifted
cognitive ability were further substantiated by Pfeiffer (2003) who postulated that the
field has not resolved two competing perspectives. He stated, “One view argues that
children with outstanding potential ability should be considered gifted; while another
view contends that demonstrated productivity should be the hallmark of giftedness” (p.
167).
The terms “gifted “and “giftedness” have undergone significant changes over the
years according to their function and symbolic definitions. According to Matthews
(2004);
Beginning with its origins in the early history of psychology, giftedness was
defined primarily in terms of intellectual ability. By the 1950’s, however,
spurred by factors that included the multifaceted model of intelligence developed
by Guilford and the elaboration by DeHann and Kough of 10 categories of gifts
and talents, a variety of efforts began leading toward a broader conceptualization
of giftedness. (p. 77)
Ambrose (2000) also indicated a shift occurring from the general belief in the narrow and
mechanistic reliance on IQ performance toward broader definitions including those that
35
involve traits, specific cognitive abilities, creativity, task commitment, achievement
motivation, leadership potential, and even psychomotor ability (Feldhusen, 1986;
Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).
The Federal Government has offered several definitions for Gifted and Talented
students. The following early definition of giftedness was offered by then Commissioner
of Education, Sydney Marland, in the 1972 Marland Report:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified

persons, who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance.
These children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services
beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize
their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance
include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the
following areas singly or in combination: (1) General Intellectual Ability; (2)
Specific Academic Aptitude; (3) Creative or Productive Thinking; (4) Leadership
Ability; (5) Visual and Performing Arts; (6) Psychomotor Ability. (p. 2)
Congressional mandates such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and the Javits Act of 1998 supported by recommendations from the National Association
for Gifted Children (2005) underscored the importance of “high achievement capability
in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields” (p. 27). The federal report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing
America’s Talent (USDE, 1993) significantly broadened the scope of GATE programs
(although the Psychomotor Ability was eliminated) and intended them to embrace more
students of color and those from low income families: “Outstanding talents are present in
children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of
human endeavor” (p. 19). Despite efforts for the definition to include multifaceted
categories and criteria in the identification of giftedness, widespread underrepresentation
36
of African American students in GATE programs continues by as much as 50%
nationally (Donovan & Cross, 2002).
Theories of Giftedness
Identification of gifted children is ideally subjected to the theory to which one
subscribes. This theory is generally aligned with one’s philosophical framework as it
relates to theories of intelligence, innate cognitive abilities, talent, and talent potential.
Within the field of gifted education, definitional issues remain a thorny issue. This is
mitigated by the fact that a single definition of giftedness has not been established and
accepted. Further confounding this debate is the interchangeable use of the terms talent
and giftedness (Gagne, 2004).
In seeking to broaden the definition of giftedness, in 1993, the U.S. Department of
Education report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent,
eliminated the term gifted in the federal definition and advocated for the exclusive use of
the phrase “outstanding talent” (Stephens & Karnes, 2000). Giftedness is typically
operationalized by a child’s IQ, along with other criteria delineated by the various State
Departments of Education. This practice has considerable implications for the
assessment of gifted minority children and those who come from economically
disadvantaged homes (Naglieri & Ford, 2003).
In the real world of classrooms, practitioners implicitly embrace different theories
of giftedness, often without carefully considering the explicit philosophies, societal, and
practical implications of a particular model (Pfieffer, 2003). American schools continue
to use intelligence and cognitive growth theories as guidelines in identifying and
37
educating gifted and talented students. The identification and assessment of gifted
students are highly influenced by theories of intelligence (Plucker, 2001). Additionally,
Sternberg (2007) stated, “Different cultures have different conceptions of what is means
to be gifted. But in identifying children as gifted we often use only our own conception
ignoring the cultural context in which children grow up” (p. 160).
It is therefore critical that definitions and theories of giftedness be more inclusive
and include an emphasis on ability in areas beyond academic ability (Bonner, Lewis,
Bowman-Perrott, & Hill-Jackson, 2009). Such contemporary theories of giftedness
include Renzulli’s (2005) Three-Ring Conception Model and Gagne’s (2004)
Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent.
Renzulli’s Three Ring Conceptual Model
Joseph Renzulli is known for his Three-Ring Conception Model of giftedness,
which fosters a more inclusive view of gifted children. Renzulli’s (2005) well-known
definition of giftedness stems from his “work on a conception of giftedness that
challenged the traditional view of this concept as mainly a function of high scores on
intelligence tests” (p. 75). Renzulli’s conception of giftedness involves the intersection
of above-average ability as a component, task commitment, and creativity (Renzulli,
2003). All three traits must interact to produce giftedness, as opposed to standing alone.
Above average ability means having potential at the high end of the spectrum. Task
commitment is determined by an individual’s motivation in performing specific jobs.
Creativity is reflected by one’s ability to display originality.
Renzulli’s (2003) research on intelligence and giftedness recommended that a
variety of instructional methods be used to teach students. An extension of his works
38
included the development of the School Wide Enrichment Model (SEM), which gained
popularity due to its primary goals to address enrichment opportunities for students who
display talents not easily discovered using traditional assessment methods. SEM
provides educators with greater flexibility in identifying students as gifted, particularly
those from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Renzulli & Reis, 2003).
Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
The field of gifted education defines its special populations around the two key
concepts of giftedness and talent. Gagne’s (2004) Differentiated Model of Giftedness
and Talent (DMGT) draws a specific delineation between these two constructs. Within
this model, giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously
expressed natural abilities, also referenced as outstanding aptitude or gifts, which places
an individual among the top 10% of age peers. Talent designates outstanding mastery of
systematically developed abilities, or skills and knowledge which place an individual
among the top 10% of age peers who are active in a particular field (Gagne, 2004). The
DMGT holds talent as a developmental construct and presents the talent development
process as the transformation of outstanding natural ability into a defined area of
expertise. According to Gagne, “This developmental sequence constitutes the heart of
the DMGT.
The Differentiated Model of Gifted and Talented differs most markedly from
other theories of giftedness in the separation of natural abilities and systematically
developed skills. Another difference is that the catalysts (interpersonal, environmental,
and chance) are recognized as having an influence on giftedness and talent development;
however, they are clearly situated outside of the constructs themselves (Gagne, 2004). A
39
final attribute unique to DMGT is that while most theories focus on intellectual
giftedness and academic talent, this model brings physical giftedness within the fold of
the giftedness construct.
Multiple Intelligences and Giftedness
Classroom and Instructional Implications
The school reform literature calls for greater equity in schools, with the
imperative to ensure success for all students. One of the greatest challenges for teachers
today is to provide a curriculum that effectively caters to their diverse student
populations. The one area over which teachers in schools have the most control is the
curriculum and how it is delivered. Yet Noble (2004) indicated that both beginning and
experienced teachers are reluctant or unable to differentiate their curriculum to meet the
diverse needs of students in their classrooms. A critical role of teachers involves
assessing students’ abilities and planning instruction accordingly. Gardner (2006) and
Armstrong (2000) espoused incorporating multiple intelligence theory into the classroom.
They recognized that the brain learns in multiple ways and that children learn better
through their strengths, particularly when these strengths are integrated into the learning
process.
Theories of multiple intelligences have reconceptualized and broadened the
perspective of human intelligence from a single entity to a multifaceted one. Gardner
(1983, 2006, 2011) proposed that people can be intelligent in different areas: linguistic,
logical-mathematical, visual/spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, naturalist and existential. According to Bordelon and Banbury (2005),
acknowledging that a student may be intelligent in ways other than the traditional
40
conception of intelligence (linguistic and logical-mathematical) is the first step in
enabling students to reach their full potential.
Baum, Viens, and Slatin (2005) indicated that using teaching approaches
informed by Gardner’s MI Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) usually involves an integrated
process between curriculum/instruction and assessment. This theory helps teachers to use
the knowledge they have accumulated about students’ intelligences and preferences to
inform subsequent instruction. Baum et al. continued, “Teachers who offer different
pedagogical perspectives create the possibility of reaching more students more
effectively” (p. 24). The powerful role intelligence plays in the educational system is
undeniable, but (Hilliard) 1995 contended that the measurement of intelligence is only
useful if it improves instruction. The traditional way of understanding pedagogy and the
static methods of teaching are giving way to the new examination and application of
multiple intelligences in the 21st century classroom. If the enhancement for
understanding these multiple intelligences is to give students more avenues to success in
the learning process, then academic institutions should carefully examine the broad
spectrum of educational issues, which includes assessment, curriculum development and
design, pedagogy, and ultimately the current education structures and priorities (Mbuva,
2003).
Strengths and Talent Development
Given how culture can emerge in students’ and teachers’ conceptions and
perceptions of knowledge, learning, and ability, teachers need to rethink what giftedness
actually means and how it is conceptualized (Milner & Ford, 2007). When assessing
students’ abilities, teachers using MI Theory focus on student strengths and consider a
41
broader range of abilities (Chen, Krechevsky, & Viens, 1998; Kornhaber & Krechevsky,
1995). Educators who actively seek to improve the rates of underrepresented students of
color in GATE programs must consciously deconstruct the current USDE (1993)
definition of giftedness and search for talent among all students:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show potential for
performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with
others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit
high performance capacity in intellectual, creative and/or artistic areas, and
unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require
services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding students
are present in children from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and
in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 26)
Further stated in the USDE report is the fact that “schools must eliminate barriers to the
participation of economically disadvantaged and minority students in services for
students with outstanding talents…..and must develop strategies to serve students from
underrepresented groups” (p. 28). This inclusive definition has positive implications for
all students, but particularly students of color. First, the definition is one of talent
development because it focuses on potential. Second, the definition notes the importance
of considering differential experiences and the opportunities in the development of gifts
and talents. Third, the definition recognizes that no group has (or should have) a
monopoly on giftedness (Ford & Harris, 1999).
Multiple Intelligence Theory offers a framework to use students’ strengths to
connect cognitively to areas that may be more problematic for them. Through careful
scaffolding, teachers guide students from using one system or intelligence to
accomplishing tasks in another. This strength-based approach also increases student
motivation and academic self-efficacy (Baum et al., 2005). Renzuli and Reis (1997)
42
maintained that gifted behavior in the school environment can be developed in a manner
that capitalizes on students’ strengths and interests.
Unfortunately, according to Baum et al. (2005), many academic structures
establish barriers to talent development, including (a) conservative interpretations and
definitions of gifted and talented students, (b) limited opportunities to demonstrate
outstanding potential across a variety of domains, and (c) the fact that talent development
is not a priority in most educational settings. Indeed, whether or not a potential is
actualized depends on a variety of factors, including family influence, a supportive
environment, talent development opportunities, and cultural receptivity.
Underrepresentation of African American Students in Gifted Programs
Despite the growth of virtually every minority group in the U.S. K-12 population,
many ethnic and racial minorities continue to be underrepresented in programs for the
gifted and talented (Yoon & Gentry, 2009). The low representation of African American
students in gifted and talented programs continues to be a national concern (Chinn &
Hughes, 1987; Ford, 2005; Maker, 1996) with minority groups of students, including
African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans underserved in gifted education by
50% to 70% (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Furthermore, Kitano, and DiJosia (2002) noted,
“The need for increased focus on underserved populations is undisputed in the field of
gifted education” (p. 76), substantiating that an imbalance between African American and
White students’ participation in gifted and talented programs is a persistent problem in
education.
According to Baldwin (2002), culturally diverse students face a variety of
challenges with regard to education in general and, more specifically, in programs
43
designed for gifted and talented students. Baldwin stated, “In general, diverse students
bring to the educational table traits, personalities, and experiences that do not always fit
into the mold of traditional programs for the gifted” (p. 140). Furthermore, Gottsfredson
(2004) suggested that “the ways we define and identify giftedness are biased in favor of
Whites and Asians” (p. 140) and is recognized as the single likely reason for the
imbalance that exists between the races in gifted education. Attempting to address issues
surrounding the underrepresentation of students of color in gifted and talented programs
is not a trivial, mundane, or straightforward endeavor (Milner & Ford, 2007). The
persistence of the problem is evidence by concerns raised by Ford (1996) over a decade
ago:
Black students, particularly males, are three times as likely as White males to be
in a class for educable mentally retarded, but only half as likely to be placed in a
class for the gifted. Not only are Black students under enrolled in gifted
education programs…[but] Black students are overrepresented in special
education, in the lowest ability groups and tracks, and among high school and
college dropouts…(p. 5)
More recently, Ford and Grantham (2003explained that African American and Hispanic
students tend to be underrepresented in gifted programs by 50% each.
Ford (2010) suggested that no one variable or factor is responsible for
underrepresentation. She asserted that a confluence of factors is at work. Many of these
factors include the deficient thinking of educators, the impact of families and peers in
relation to the socio-emotional aspects surrounding gifted African American students, the
impact of achievement issues in relation to many African American students, and the lack
of exposure to quality education programs, all of which can ultimately prohibit access to
gifted and talented programs and perpetuate underrepresentation. Concrete solutions to
44
the underrepresentation of African American students in gifted education have yet to be
developed (Dickson, 2003).
Limitations of the Deficit Perspectives
A body of research (Ford, 2010; Frasier, 1993; Grantham, 2004; Milnor & Ford,
2007; Tyson, Darity, & Casttellino, 2005) has supported the premise that the
underrepresentation of African American students in gifted education extends beyond
concerns with identification instruments and assessment processes, and a deficit
perspective (Ford et al., 2002) of African American students exists. According to Ford,
deficit thinking is grounded in the belief that culturally different students are genetically
and culturally inferior to White students. Ford stated, “It is a belief that their culture –
beliefs, values, language, practices, customs, traditions, and more are substandard,
abnormal, and unacceptable” (p. 32). Deficit thinking is viewed as a systematic problem
that influences all aspects of gifted education—definitions and theories, instruments
selected for assessments, identification criteria, policies and procedures (low teacher
referral), curriculum and instruction, relationships, and placements (or lack thereof; Ford,
2010).
In examining the historical literature concerning African Americans’ intelligence,
an inference may be drawn that the profession of psychology has maintained some
allegiance to themes that have perpetuated the perception that African Americans’
intelligence is innately inferior to that of Whites (Franklin, 1991). Franklin further noted,
“The theories, methodologies, findings, and conclusions generated by many American
psychologists have been used to try and demonstrate that Blacks and other racial
minorities are mentally inferior to Whites” (p. 207).
45
Schools today, according to Morris (2002), are not immune from the realities of
history and the pervasive unspoken beliefs in the scientific community that doubt the
intellectual capacity of African Americans. Herrnstein and Murray’s (1996) Bell Curve
continues to propagate the notion in the academy and popular culture that a major reason
African Americans do not achieve in schools might be more connected to notions of
innate intellectual inferiority than to persistent, concrete structural, and historical forces.
Morris (2002) stated, “Gifted education with its roots in psychology, inherited these
perceptions of African American people, and remnants of this belief continue to
germinate within the schooling process and the field of gifted education” (p. 59). Morris
further indicated that the politics of race and culture affect the education of African
American students in the American social and schooling process. According to noted
educator and psychology professor Asa G. Hilliard (1995), “Race and minority status,
socioeconomic status, and other variables are not factors that predict what students can
learn. More likely than not, they predict how schools will treat children” (p. xiv).
Academic Achievement Gap and Access to Gifted and Talented Programs
Ford (2010) indicates that a national problem which extends beyond, yet includes
gifted underrepresentation, is the achievement gap. According to Haycock (2002), there
is an achievement gap between groups of students of substantial portions in California
and in this country. The gap has enormous consequences to the futures of some students.
She further postulated that the vast gaps in achievement between low income students,
students of color, and their more advanced peers show no signs of shrinking and are often
on the rise. Underrepresentation cannot be completely reconciled if the achievement gap
in gifted education is not addressed (Ford, 2006). National surveys have indicated that
46
only 10% of students performing at the highest levels are culturally and linguistically
diverse students, even though they represent 33% of the school population (Gallagher,
2002).
Murrell (2002) believed that even though the national concern over the
achievement gap rightly focuses attention on African American student achievement, it is
the wrong response to pursue ways of closing the achievement gap as long as
“achievement is principally regarded as aggregate performance on high stakes
standardized achievement tests” (p. 17). Many of the underrepresented students can be
considered educationally disadvantaged as a result of educational, linguistic, cultural, and
other environmental factors, causing disparity in test performance. These differences
could be a result of inconsistencies in skill acquisition at the time of the test (Mills &
Tissot, 1995). Inadequate academic preparation may be the reason that many ethnically
diverse children who may be gifted fail to be identified. These children may not have
acquired the knowledge base necessary to be identified for programs that build upon
previously learned academic skills (Lewis, DeCamp-Fritson, Ramage, MacFarland, and
Archwamety, 2007). Given the current reality that African American students
underachieve in schools, they are destined to go unidentified for gifted and talented
programs; and their needs will be unrecognized and unmet (Ford et al., 2002).
Inadequate Teacher Preparation
To meet the educational needs of minority student populations, Harmon (2002)
advocated for more focus on training teachers in addition to program development in
teacher education. Incorporating multicultural education into gifted and talented
programs may improve the identification of gifted African American students. Too few
47
educators receive formal and meaningful exposure to multicultural educational
experiences, multicultural curriculum and instruction, or internships and practicums in
urban settings. The training received is often relegated to one course at the university
level (Banks & Banks, 2006). More attention needs to be given to the impact of cultural
competence, culturally relevant teaching, and multicultural education on the achievement
of African American and other minority students. The lack of cultural and multicultural
competence among teachers seems to contribute to disproportionally lower numbers of
students of color in gifted education (Milner & Ford, 2007).
Teachers must learn how general characteristics used for identifying gifted
behaviors may differ in a cultural context and in what ways these behaviors influence
identification of giftedness in culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse students
(Briggs et al., 2008). Ford, Grantham, and Whiting (2008) found that few teachers have
formal preparation in gifted education, which impacts their understanding of giftedness
and the characteristics and needs of gifted students. Teachers who lack preparation in
gifted education are ineffective at identifying gifted students (Cox, Daniel, & Boston,
1985). Teachers unprepared to work with gifted students may retain stereotypes and
misperceptions that undermine their ability to recognize strengths in students who behave
differently from their expectations. Teachers often use the behaviors of White students as
the norm by which to compare African American students (Ford et al., 2002). A lack of
preparation in and sensitivity to the characteristics of gifted students; a lack of
understanding of the needs and development of gifted culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse students; and a lack of multicultural preparation all undermine
48
educators’ competency and contribute to the underrepresentation of minority students
within gifted and talented programs (Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008).
Influences of Peer and Social Culture on African American Students
Controversy exists regarding the reasons that African American students are
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. The controversy focuses on whether
the causes include deficiencies in the students and their families or discriminatory
practices of schools and society at large that restrict the search for and discovery of
minority talent (Ford et al., 2002). According to Morris (2002), the literature is replete
with analyses of how African American student peer culture, in particular, adversely
affects African American students’ school success.
A number of scholars have asserted that some African American students are not
achieving partly as a result of the pressures they receive from their African American
peers to not achieve for fear of being labeled as trying to “act White” (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Kunjufu, 1989). Tyson et al. (2005) revealed that the concept of acting White
exists primarily in school settings where there is an overrepresentation of White students
and a drastic underrepresentation of African American students in gifted and talented
classes. Fordham and Ogbu further discussed this phenomenon as an illustration of
African American youth’s resistance to the imposition of a White cultural framework for
success. To further illustrate this phenomenon in gifted education, Ford (1996) and
Tatum (1997) noted how some gifted African American students go to the extreme of
sabotaging their academic success by refusing placement in gifted education programs
because their friends are not in them, and the programs were almost completely filled by
White students.
49
For many gifted African American students, male students in particular, racial
identity development has a significant impact on achievement, motivation, and attitudes
toward school (Grantham & Ford, 2003). According to Rowley and Moore (2002), there
are two primary views of the relationship between racial identity and academic
achievement of African American students. The dichotomized view suggests that high-
achieving African American students are torn between social acceptance of lesser-
achieving African American peers and strong academic performance. The second view,
the bicultural view, asserts that African American students’ identities are diverse and
complex, and they allow high achieving and gifted African American students to
maintain their identify while engaging in achievement oriented behaviors (Banks, 1979;
Exum & Colangelo, 1981).
Although there is considerable debate about the extent of this phenomenon, it
should not be dismissed in a field that has historically operated with definitions of
giftedness that are not multicultural and inclusive (Frasier, 1991; Kitano, 1991) and often
encourages students from diverse cultural and ethnic groups to relinquish significant
aspects of their cultural identity by assuming one that is Anglo-American in nature
(Tannenbaum, 1990). Awareness of potential social problems of gifted students is
critical to educators’ ability to support students. Teachers must be sensitive to the
psychological difficulties faced by gifted African American students and their potential
for underachievement. They must also be aware of the complexities of racial identity and
how it may be conceptualized in the classroom (Rowley & Moore, 2002).
50
Barriers to Participation in Gifted and Talented Programs
Ensuring academic success of high achieving students who come from
communities that are historically underrepresented in gifted education programs is of
interest to many (Ford & Harris, 1999; Levine, 2005; O’Connnell, 2003; Passow &
Frasier, 1996; Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997). Underrepresentation of students of
color and students from low economic groups in programs designed for gifted learners
remains a stubborn reality over recent decades (National Research Council, 2002).
Reasons for the underrepresentation are many and include (but are not limited to)
differential preparation of students for the demands of school, teacher perception and
bias, and identification procedures that have historically excluded many diverse learners
who are unable to meet rigid cut-off scores used to identify students as “gifted” (National
Research Council, 2002; Terman, 1925).
Teacher Perceptions of Students’ Abilities
African American students have consistently lagged behind White students in
identification for gifted education programs. Ford et al. (2002) contended that educators
must change their perceptions of African American students to recruit and retain them in
gifted programs. Understanding practitioner beliefs related to the identification of gifted
students is related to any and all attempts to improve equity and excellence of gifted
education programs (Schroth & Helfer, 2008). Knowledge about such beliefs is important
because educators’ beliefs influence their practice and actions (Callahan, 2001; Duke,
2003; Fullan, 2007; Stronge, 2002; Tomlinson, 2003). Further research by Milner (2003)
and Woolfolk (2004) reflected that teachers’ experiences and their beliefs significantly
impact how they perceive their students. Helping teachers to understand their beliefs and
51
providing them with new and perhaps more appropriate ways in which to view their
students’ strengths and talents can enable them to rethink their perspectives on giftedness
and talent (Milner & Ford, 2007).
The effects of the previously described mindset of deficit thinking causes many
teachers to perceive minority students as liabilities rather than assets, failing to capture
and engage the wealth of knowledge and experience that all children bring to the
classroom (Landsman & Lewis, 2006). Teachers should examine the origins of their
biases to ensure that those biases do not interfere with their perceptions of students and
how they teach (Lintner, 2004). Speirs et al. (2007) showed that even experienced
teachers often hold a narrow conception of giftedness and are not aware “how culture and
environmental factors may influence the expression of giftedness in minority and
economically disadvantaged students” (p. 479). Indeed, perceptions about economically
disadvantaged students combined with a lack of cultural understanding may undermine
the ability of educators to recruit economically disadvantaged and culturally diverse
students into gifted education programs (Elhoweris, 2008).
Teachers’ perceptions of culture-related identities are relevant to the educational
successes of students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson, & Bridgest,
2003). One impediment to good teacher judgment about gifted and talented but culturally
different students may very well be negative teacher attitudes toward children from
diverse cultural backgrounds (Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005).
Teachers who use a cultural-differences perspective recognize culturally, linguistically,
and ethnically diverse students’ individual and working preferences and respond in one of
two ways. They either recognize differences but require students to adapt to fit the status
52
quo, or they recognize differences and modify the learning environment to support
student learning preferences (Baldwin, 2002; Ford & Grantham, 2003; Ford et al., 2000;
Morris, 2002; Renzulli & Reis, 1997).
The Nomination and Referral Process
Recruitment to GATE programs includes referral, screening, identification, and
placement decisions. In most schools, entering the screening pool is based on teacher
referral (Colangelo & Davis, 2003). Teachers’ experiences, perceptions, and attitudes
can contribute to the underrepresentation of African American students in gifted and
talented programs because most student referrals are teacher-initiated (Rizza & Morrison,
2002; Van Tassel-Baska, Feng, Quek, & Struck, 2004). Research by Bonner (2001) and
Grantham (2004) indicated that teacher referrals are often riddled with subjective
tendencies and preconceived notions of who and what the teacher perceives the student
brought to the classroom setting.
The importance of addressing teacher referrals as gatekeeper is not an
insignificant matter, as most states rely on teacher referral or completed checklists and
forms for selecting students for gifted placement (Davidson Institute, 2006; National
Association for Gifted Children, 2005). Miller (2005) suggested that the referral process
might support possible biases that have a negative effect on increasing the numbers of
identified gifted students from minority populations. Swanson (2006) and Baldwin
(2005) argued that because teachers act as custodians when nominating students into
gifted programs, teacher attitudes and perspectives prevent many students from accessing
these programs. Furthermore, Margison (2006) found that teachers failed to demonstrate
theory-based reasoning, focusing instead on traditional definitions of giftedness and not
53
making adjustments to accommodate characteristics of diverse gifted students.
Moreover, Elhoweris et al. (2005) investigated the effects of student ethnicity on teacher
decision making regarding the inclusion of students in gifted education programs and
stated:
The results of this study indicated that the students ethnicity does make a
difference in teachers’ referral decisions….The results of this investigation –
some students are referred to gifted programs, and others are not may add to
reasons why children from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds are
enrolled in gifted and talented programs in low numbers….in addition to the
modification of teacher education programs, the referral process to gifted and
talented programs must be monitored for any evidence of potential bias. (p. 30)
According to Ford, Grantham, and Whiting (2008), few teachers have formal
preparation in gifted education, leading to the question of whether or not teachers
understand giftedness and are familiar with characteristics of giftedness, particularly in
diverse student populations. Staiger (2004) argued that if a difference exists between the
students and the cultural background of the teacher, then there might be a compromise of
the teacher’s ability to assess the student’s potential for giftedness. Ford, Moore,
Whiting, and Grantham (2008) postulated that a lack of preparation in sensitivity to the
characteristics of gifted students, lack of understanding of needs and development of
gifted culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse students, and a lack of attention to
multicultural preparation all undermine an educators’ competence to make fair and
equitable referral decisions. This preparation is especially needed for teachers of
minority students or those from low-income families (Siegle & Powell, 2004). Without
the appropriate training and understanding, teachers tend to focus on the stereotypical
academic-only characteristics and overlook creativity, leadership, and other culturally
specific aptitudes that are valued (Hunsaker, Finley, & Frank, 1997; Siegle & Powell,
2004). To address problems in underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs,
54
administrators and teachers must rethink how they define and evaluate students’
academic potential, as they see students and themselves through cultural lenses (Milner &
Ford, 2007).
Identification and Assessment Practices
The identification of students who are gifted traditionally has been grounded in
criteria with an emphasis on unitary measures of intellectual ability (Romanoff,
Algozzine, & Nielson. 2009). The use of tests to identify and assess students is a
pervasive educational practice that has increased with recent federal legislation such as
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Test scores play the dominant role in
identification and placement decisions. The majority of school districts use intelligence
or achievement test scores for recruitment into gifted education (Davidson Institute,
2006; Davis & Rimm, 2004). In that many school districts maintain this status quo in
their identification procedures, some researchers have argued that this testing creates a
cultural bias through an overt reliance on students’ mathematical and linguistic abilities
as well as IQ tests scores (Cross & Cross, 2005; Gardner, 2006).
According to Sattler (2001), the correlation between intelligence and achievement
is .50. This means that approximately 25% of the variance associated with achievement
is attributed to intelligence. He further postulated that this figure, 25%, although
substantial, indicates that 75% of the variance associated with achievement is attributable
to qualities other than intelligence. Oakland and Rossen (2005) concurred and indicated
that these traditional measures of intelligence provide little direct information about one’s
passion for learning, persistence, learning styles and strategies, and other qualities that
may contribute to academic success. As a result, programs that rely heavily on
55
intelligence test data are likely to have fewer Black and Hispanic students than those that
focus on other qualities (Ford, 1996). Such test driven definitions of giftedness may be
effective at identifying middle-class White students (Sternberg, 2007) which may lead to
underrepresentation. According to Ford, Grantham, and Whiting (2008), these tests that
assess giftedness unidimensionally as a function of high IQ or achievement test scores,
too infrequently capture giftedness among students who (a) perform poorly on paper-and-
pencil tasks conducted in artificial or lab like settings (Helms, 1992); (b) do not perform
well on culturally loaded tests (Fagan & Holland, 2002; Sternberg, 2007); (c) have
learning or cognitive styles that differ from White students (Hale, 2001; Hilliard, 1992;
Shade, Kelly, & Oberg, 1997); (d) have test anxiety or suffer from stereotype threat
(Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Aronson & Steele, 2005); or (e) have low academic
motivation or engagement while being assessed (Wechsler, 1991).
The National Association for Gifted Children (2005) has continued to advocate
for the sustained exploration, adaptation, and reevaluation of alternative assessment
instruments and practices, which grants equal opportunities to all potentially gifted
children. The calls for more authentic assessment are based in part on arguments that
human knowledge and skill are manifested in particular activities, contexts, and cultures
(Baldwin, 2004; Coleman, 2003; Ford, 2006; National Research Council, 2002).
Educators have begun to respond to issues contributing to underrepresentation by
advocating for a more comprehensive identification procedure that may better identify
gifted minority students. Furthermore, educators are supporting a change in attitudes
about giftedness, recognizing that giftedness is developmental and that no single test can
measure giftedness (Bernal, 1994; Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1995; Donovan
56
& Cross, 2002). Briggs et al. (2008), in their qualitative study of successful programs for
minority gifted students, found that modified identification procedures were a major
component of successful programs for traditionally underrepresented students. Two of
the most common modifications included the use of alternative pathways for program
admission and an increased focus on broad perspectives of student performance. They
advocated using alternative methods of identification such as the use of nonverbal tests,
authentic assessments, and multiple criteria, including parent and teacher nominations.
Recognition of the need for a broader base of identification criteria has progressed
from theoretical and research-based advances to generally accepted recommendations
included in standardized textbooks in the field (Colangelo & Davis, 1997; Coleman &
Cross, 2001; Davis & Rimm, 2004). As more current theoretical perspectives on abilities
and talents embraced intellective and non-intellective characteristics, identification
procedures must reflect such changes (Brown et al., 2005). The challenge, then, is to
bring beliefs and practices together. Therefore, it is time to examine identification
guidelines and practical procedures (Renzulli, 1990) that are more consistent with
present-day research on human abilities.
Implications of Policies and Program Designs
Schools across the United States continue to struggle with achievement issues
surrounding African American students such as low achievement rates, high dropout
rates, and low participation rates in gifted and talented programs (Davis, 2010b).
Conditions leading to these issues have been attributed to many factors including
inadequate identification protocols, poor teacher training, and lack of policies and
practices that promote equitable representation in gifted programs (Ford, Grantham, &
57
Whiting, 2008). Exacerbating these issues is the fact that educators, researchers, and
practitioners continue to debate definitional issues of giftedness. Although most state
regulations and school policies reflect some derivation of the fairly broad 1972 definition
offered by the U.S. Department of Education, in practice at the local level, above average
intellectual ability remains the predominant definition criteria (Callahan, 1996). With
goals of broadening the definition of giftedness and increasing program inclusiveness, the
newest federal definition supported in the U. S. Department of Education report (1993),
National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent eliminated the term gifted
and advocated for the exclusive use of the phrase “outstanding talent” (Stephens &
Karnes, 2000).
The first step in identification should be to clearly define what is meant by
“gifted”. Clearly defined terminology improves identification, and internal program
consistency mandates the alignment of identification criteria and program services
(Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2008). Pfieffer (2003) maintained that the field has not
resolved two competing perspectives on how to conceptualize “giftedness”. He intimated
that one view argues that children with outstanding potential ability should be considered
“gifted”, while the other view contends that demonstrated “productivity” should be the
hallmark of giftedness. This dichotomous view is also noted by Brown et al. (2005) as
the absolutist view, that a person is either gifted or not, or the relative view, that gifted
behaviors can be developed in certain people at certain times under certain
circumstances. Some believe that the gifted are those students who may become eminent
minds of their generation and perform at a much higher level in objectively measurable
ways than do their peers (Brody & Stanley, 2005; Monks & Katzko, 2005). Still others
58
maintain that while “gifted” does refer to the extraordinary learner, it also includes those
students who possess a capability and a desire to engage in academic challenges or who
demonstrate great achievement in matters explored in the classroom or environment
(Callahan & Miller, 2005; Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Sternberg, 2003). Understanding that
assumptions and practices may not be in full agreement is a first step in reviewing the
appropriateness of future identification policies and specific identification practices that
should be guided by state and local policy (Brown et al., 2005).
When developing policies and programs focused on increasing the number of
underrepresented students in gifted and talented programs, consideration should be given
to the modifications in programming to best facilitate student success. To reduce levels
of underrepresentation, procedures to identify students for participation in gifted and
talented programs should be equivalent to the delivery methods of gifted programming
(Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). To date, many attempts to balance equity and excellence
have been unsatisfactory (Borland, 2005; Borland, Schnur, & Wright, 2000; Moon &
Callahan, 2001; Tomlinson et al., 1997).
Problems persist in matching services to learners (Schroth & Helfer, 2008).
Altering identification procedures can and has slowly increased participation by
traditionally underrepresented student populations (Baldwin, 2005; Borland, 2005;
Callahan, 2001; Ford, 2003; Reis & Small, 2005). However, many observers are
dissatisfied with the results, as modifying identification processes without modifying
programming often leaves students inappropriately served, which may lead to the failure
to retain students within the programs (Borland, 2005; Callahan, 2001; Ford, 2003; Reis
and Small, 2005; Tomlinson, Gouild, Schroth, & Jarvis, 2006). Renzulli (2005)
59
suggested that the primary challenge of educators is to establish educational settings that
change the potential of students into performance. According to Schroth and Helfer
(2008), many gifted education programs are based on distinct policies and program
models. A better understanding by all, including theoreticians and practitioners, of the
connection between identification and services might well increase the efficiency,
efficacy, and ethics of current efforts to eliminate the underrepresentation of African
American students in gifted and talented programs.
Theoretical Framework of This Study
The low representation of African American students in gifted and talented
programs continues to be of national concern (Chinn & Hughes, 1987; Ford, 2005;
Maker, 1996) with many minority groups of students including African American,
Hispanics, and Native Americans being underserved in gifted education nationally by
50% to 70% (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford & Grantham, 2003). Viewed from the
societal perspective, Johnston and Kritsonis (2007) opined that the continued under-
identification of gifted minority students in the United States symbolizes a considerable
waste of talent. Researchers are beginning to develop innovative identification
procedures grounded in solid theory (Gardner, 2000; Renzulli, 2005; Sternberg, 2003).
MI Theory expands beyond the child gifted in linguistic and logic related areas to
encompass students with a variety of other talents. MI Theory allows educators to focus
on students’ strengths rather than weaknesses (Chen, 2004). Because Gardner’s MI
Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) is not culturally biased against students from diverse cultures
and ethnic backgrounds (Ford, 1996) the gifts and talents of African American students
60
are more likely to be identified and nurtured rather than ignored or overlooked by
teachers.
Gardner’s MI Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) is a cognitive model that seeks to
describe how individuals use their intelligence to solve problems. According to
Armstrong (2006, 2011), Gardner’s approach is particularly geared to how the mind
operates. Introduction of MI Theory taught educators to understand the actual
connections that the brain has to learning. Drawing on the research in neuropsychology,
Gardner described how different functions of the brain can be related to particular brain
injury (Connell, 2009). This seminal research, along with the evolving field of
neuroscience demonstrated that individual learning varies across a platform of human
potentialities in which individual differences stemming from bio-psychological and
cultural factors affect their skill sets and even their abilities (McFarlane, 2011).
Additionally, study of the literature has confirmed the role of culture and its
mediation in the processes of teaching and learning. Given how culture can emerge in
students’ and teachers’ conceptions and perceptions of knowledge, learning, and ability,
teachers need to rethink definitions of giftedness and how it is conceptualized (Milner &
Ford, 2007). There is a level of urgency associated with identifying and retaining
culturally diverse students in gifted education. Ford (1996) indicated that this must be of
particular consideration for teachers. She postulated that educators must be cognizant of
deficit thinking and stereotypical models of giftedness. This change in paradigm will
play a significant role in reversing the current trends in the underrepresentation of
African American students in gifted and talented programs.
61
Through the literature review, it is revealed that understanding practitioner beliefs
related to identification of gifted students is related to any and all attempts to improve the
equity and excellence of gifted education programs. Little is known about the
conceptions and beliefs of academic talent and giftedness held by those who deliver
services to students. Educator beliefs, the conception of academic talents and giftedness,
and the types of students on which these conceptions focus, are indicative of the
philosophies underlying their proponents’ actions. In all cases, beliefs and conceptions of
academic talent and giftedness impact which students are ultimately served by gifted
programs (Schroth & Helfer, 2008). Such beliefs may unintentionally contribute to
underrepresentation. Educators seeking to identify students for gifted and talented
programs should identify characteristics that indicate giftedness rather than focus on why
a student is not gifted. Because teachers’ ratings of students play an important role in
identifying gifted students, it is important to investigate whether teachers’ beliefs,
stereotypes, biases, and expectations influence their selection of students for gifted and
talented programs (Siegle & Powell, 2004).
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Gardners’ MI Theory
(Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011) on teacher attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness
and the referral of African American students to GATE programs. The following
research questions guided the study:
Education programs?
62
Education programs?
Summary of the Literature Review
Chapter 2 provided a review of the literature on the aspects of the brain and
learning, multiple intelligence theories, and cultural learning styles and how these
concepts may influence the definition and perception of giftedness. Also addressed in
this review were current barriers that may contribute to the lack of referral and ultimately
the underrepresentation of African American students in GATE programs.
63
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Gardner’s Multiple
Intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011) on teacher referral of African American
students to GATE programs. Research questions guiding this study were:
Education programs?
Education programs?
Research Design and Rationale
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach, with the component of a quasi-
experimental design and qualitative inquiry. Traditionally, research paradigms of
qualitative or quantitative inquiry have dominated research methodologies in various
scientific disciplines. However, during the past 2 decades, researchers have moved to
64
models of inquiry that allow the integration of both perspectives (Creswell, 1994;
LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A mixed-methods design
involves the use of both methodologies collectively so that the overall strength of the
study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research alone (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). According to Creswell (2009), mixed-methods allow the researcher to gain
broader perspectives as a result of using different methods as opposed to using
predominantly one method.
The design of this study reflected a concurrent transformative model. Concurrent
mixed method procedures are those that merge quantitative and qualitative data and then
integrate the information in the interpretation of the overall results to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the research problem (Cresswell, 2009). Within the
transformative mixed methods procedures, an overarching theoretical lens provides a
framework for the topic of interest, methods for collecting data, and outcomes or changes
anticipated by the study (Creswell, 2009).
The researcher utilized a quasi-experimental design for the quantitative
component. In quasi-experimental research, the investigator used a control and
experiment group but did not randomly assign participants to groups (Cresswell, 2009).
This selected design was due to the availability of existing intact groups of teachers.
A qualitative research approach provides an unrestrictive framework that supports
a broad, exploratory investigation using philosophical assumptions (Creswell, 2005).
The use of qualitative inquiry served as a tool in supporting the purpose of this study, as
it provided a way to explore and gain depth in understanding of teacher perceptions and
beliefs on giftedness and the impact of the MI Theory (Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011) on
65
teacher referral of African American students to Gifted and Talented Education
programs.
Role of the Researcher
Qualitative research involves the researcher as the instrument of data collection.
In doing so, the researcher must adopt a position of neutrality with regard to the
phenomenon under study and requires the investigator to carefully reflect on, deal with,
and report potential sources of bias and error (Patton, 2002). During the collection of
qualitative data, the researcher engaged in reflexivity which emphasizes the importance of
self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one’s perspective and
voice, as well as the perspective and voice of those one interviews and those to whom
one reports (Patton, 2007).
The researcher has been employed in the district under study for 21 years and has
served at both the school site and district levels in positions such as Classroom Teacher,
Resource Specialist, Vice-Principal, Principal, and Director. Currently, the researcher
works with elementary, middle, and high schools to specifically design, support, and
monitor district initiatives focused on closing the achievement gap relative to African
American students. Targeted initiatives also include increasing the identification and
participation of underrepresented students in Gifted and Talented Education programs.
As a result of this relationship with district administrators and teachers, the
process of epoche’ was engaged. According to Patton (2007), “the process of epoche’ is
a primary and necessary phenomenological procedure” in qualitative research (p. 485).
In this process, the researcher looks internally to become aware of personal bias, to
eliminate personal involvement with the subject material, or at least to gain clarity about
66
pre-conceptions. Katz (1987) asserted that epoche’ enables the researcher to investigate
the phenomenon under investigation from a fresh and open perspective without
prejudgment or imposing meaning too soon. Katz further indicated that this suspension
of judgment is critical in phenomenological investigations and requires the setting aside
of the researcher’s personal viewpoint in order to see the experience for itself.
Participants in the Study
This study was conducted in a large urban school district in Southern California,
and included teachers from seven schools. Sixty-two teachers in grades 4 to 6 from seven
schools with African American student populations greater than 15% were invited to
participate in the study (see Appendix B). Teachers in the study represented two groups,
those having training in MI Theory (Gardner, 1983, 2006, 2011) and those having no
training in MI Theory. Training in MI Theory is offered on a voluntary basis by the
district under study as an opportunity for professional growth and development. The 5-
day training introduced MI Theory and provided teachers with information on the
foundational elements of MI Theory and strategies for the differentiation of instruction to
support development of the various intelligences.
Demographic Data for Questionnaire Participants
Demographic data indicated that the majority of the teachers, 33%, taught fourth
grade, 31% taught fifth grade, 23% taught sixth grade, with 13% of the teachers currently
teaching a grade level other than 4 to 6, such as a Special Day or Multi-grade
combination class. Ethnicity of the respondents is reflective of the teaching
demographics of the State and the District, with the majority of the teachers represented
being Caucasian (67%); Hispanic at 26%; and African American, Asian, and participants
67
self-reporting as “other” each representing 3% of the teachers completing the
questionnaire.
The majority of participants were veteran teachers (44%), having taught for more
than 10 years, with 8% of the teachers having taught for less than 1 year. Table 1
provides demographic data for the participants.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Questionnaire Participants (N= 39)
Characteristic n %
Ethnicity
African American 1 3
Asian 1 3
Caucasian 26 67
Hispanic 10 26
Other 1 3
Grade Level Taught

Fourth 13 33
Fifth 12 31
Sixth 9 23
Other 5 13
Years Teaching
Less than 1 year 3 8
2 - 5 years 5 13
6 – 10 years 14 36
10+ years 17 43
GATE Certification
No 35 90
Yes 4 10
Training in MIT
No 15 39
Yes 24 62
Participation in GATE Trainings

No 17 44
Yes 22 56
Note. Totals of percentages are not 100 for every characteristic because of rounding.
MIT= Multiple Intelligence Theory.
68
Although 56.% of the teachers have participated in some type of Gifted and Talented
Education (GATE) training, only 10% hold full GATE certification. Additionally, 39%
of the participants have no training in Multiple Intelligence (MI) Theory, with 62%
having received some level of training in MI Theory.
Demographic Data for Interview Participants
Selection criteria for participants in this phase of the study included teachers from
the quantitative component who held full Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)
certification and had completed training on Multiple Intelligence Theory. Six teachers
responded to the invitation as volunteer participants for the individual interviews (see
Appendix C). All teachers were veteran teachers, with the mean number of years
teaching being 17.2. Table 2 provides demographic information on the interview
participants.
Instrumentation
The design of the questionnaire for this study was based on the modification of
two existing sources. The sources were studies by Schroth and Helfer (2009) and Frasier
et al. (1995b).
Table 2
Biographical Information of Interview Participants
Participant # Years Teaching *Grade Level

1 25 Primary
2 15 Primary
3 22 Upper
4 13 Primary
5 11 Upper
6 17 Upper
*Primary Grades= K-3, Upper Grades = 4-6
69
Schroth and Helfer
Schroth and Helfer (2009) used a national random sample of 900 educators to
assess teacher beliefs on the identification of gifted students and the identification
methods they supported, including standardized tests; portfolios of student work; and
teacher, parent, and peer nominations. According to Schroth and Helfer, the
questionnaire items were constructed using a three-step process. First, an extensive
literature review was conducted on conceptions of giftedness. This was followed by
critical analysis of the contents by experts and professionals within the field of Gifted and
Talented Education for construct validity. Finally, questionnaire reliability was
determined to be at a .94 level using the Spearman-Brown split-half approach.
Frasier et al. Instrument
The study by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, entitled
“Educators’ Perceptions of Barriers to the Identification of Gifted Children from
Economically Disadvantaged and Limited English Proficient Backgrounds” (Frasier et
al., 1995b) was developed to investigate educators’ perceptions of issues affecting the
identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and
limited English speaking backgrounds. It involved 750 educators from 14 school sites.
The questionnaire was designed for use in training teachers to observe gifted traits,
aptitudes, and behaviors. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale with responses
ranging from 1 meaning strongly agree to 5 meaning strongly disagree. One source for
the 10 items on the instrument was the literature on gifted minority and economically
disadvantaged students. The other source was the professional judgment of researchers at
the University of Georgia.
70
The Questionnaire for This Study
A questionnaire was used to examine the impact of knowledge of Gardner’s MI
Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) training on teacher attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs on
giftedness and the referral of African American students to GATE programs (see
Appendix D). Using a Likert scale, the questionnaire was organized into six sections to
obtain information about participants’ background, teacher knowledge of district referral
criteria, teacher conception of referral criteria, teacher knowledge of MI Theory, teacher
perceptions of giftedness, and teacher perceptions of cultural factors and giftedness in
African American students.
Appropriate permissions were obtained for modified use of the existing
instruments. From Schroth and Helfer’s (2009) questionnaire, questions 2, 5, and 7 were
modified to align with the focus of the current study. To best answer the research
question, “What is the teacher’s knowledge of the current district criteria for referring
students to Gifted and Talented programs,” teachers were asked to indicate their
responses to questions such as, “I know the District criteria for nominating or referring
students for identification and placement in Gifted programs” and “I am very aware of
the District’s Alternative Identification Criteria for Gifted and Talented Programs.”
Teachers provided information on their conceptions of referral criteria by
responding to questions on various methods that they believe to be effective in referring
students to Gifted programs. Criteria included standardized tests, teacher nomination,
peer nominations, portfolios of student work, and observations.
To obtain information on teacher beliefs and perceptions on giftedness, teachers
were asked to select attributes that they believe demonstrate giftedness. Attributes
71
included those based on MI Theory such as Creativity, Leadership Ability, High Spatial
Intelligence, Ability in Visual Arts, and traditional attributes such as Specific Aptitude
(doing well in math, science or reading), standardized test scores at the 98th percentile or
above, and high analytical ability.
From Frasier et al.’s instrument (1995), items 3 to 8 were modified to address
teacher perceptions of cultural attributes of African American students to answer
Research Question 4, “How do cultural factors impact teacher attitudes, perceptions, and
beliefs on giftedness in African American students among teachers with training in MI
Theory vs. teachers with no training in MI Theory?” Teachers provided information on
their perceptions and beliefs of the impact of cultural factors and the identification of
giftedness in African American students by indicating how strongly they disagree or
agree to culturally oriented questions such as, “ Differences in language experiences
hinder the development of giftedness in African American students,” “Culture can impact
how students learn and engage in school,” and “Nonstandard English and African
American Vernacular English prevents students from performing well enough in school
to be nominated for Gifted programs.”
Interview Protocol
Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview questions (see Appendix
E) were developed to align with the research questions and to provide the opportunity for
more detailed responses to items on the questionnaire to acquire a more in-depth picture
of teacher attitude perceptions and beliefs on giftedness and the referral of African
American students to GATE programs (see Appendix F). For example, to better
understand teachers’ knowledge, perception, attitudes, and beliefs on MI Theory,
72
participants were asked, “Please share your perspective on Howard Gardner’s theory of
Multiple Intelligence.” To capture their knowledge, perception, and beliefs on
Giftedness, participants were asked, “How do you define giftedness?” To gain depth in
understanding in teacher attitudes and beliefs on cultural factors and the perception of
giftedness in African American students, participants were asked, “Please share your
thoughts on what may be contributing factors to the underrepresentation of African
American students in Gifted and Talented Education programs.”
Procedures for Data Collection
Data collection was conducted in three phases to support data triangulation.
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) described data triangulation as use of a variety of data sources
in a study. Triangulation of the data collected in each phase of this study supported
addressing the purpose of the study and provided a foundation for best answering each
research question.
Phase One: District Data
A compilation of district policies, procedures, and data was reviewed to inform
the researcher of the district’s demographic characteristics and data trends on African
American students referred and subsequently identified for GATE programs. Under
study was a large urban school district in Southern California, serving 54,514 students.
Challenges faced by this district are similar to other larger urban districts and include
high rates of poverty, high rates of student mobility, and a large number of minority
students. According to 2010-2011 data from the California Department of Education,
84% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, over 19,000 (33%) of the students
are English Learners, and 5,041 (9%) of the students are identified for Special Education.
73
The district is rich in culture and diversity, with over 88% of the students representing an
ethnic minority. Figure 1 provides district demographic data.
Phase Two: Questionnaire Data
An 11-item questionnaire was administered to gather data on teacher beliefs
regarding GATE programs, Multiple Intelligence Theory, Giftedness, and Cultural
factors. This phase of the study began with the scheduling of orientation meetings with
school administrators and teachers from participating school sites. At each meeting, the
researcher reviewed the nature of the study and obtained signed consent forms. During
the meetings, anonymity and confidentiality in respondent information were ensured.
Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire and submit it at the end of the
meeting. Sixty-two questionnaires were distributed to teachers, and 39 (63%)
questionnaires were returned.
Figure 1. Demographics of school district 2011-2012.
74
Phase 3: Interview Data
From the seven schools participating in Phase 1 of the study, a listing of teachers
holding full GATE Certification was requested from the district’s Advanced Learner
Department. Letters were prepared and delivered to the schools of identified teachers,
inviting their participation in the interview process. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with six participants over a 4-week period. Each interview lasted from 45 to
60 minutes. With appropriate permissions, interviews were digitally recorded, with field
notes taken during the interview to note reflective and non-verbal responses.
Pseudonyms were used to protect participant confidentiality.
75
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, analyses of the triangulated data are explained. The related
findings are presented for each of the four research questions.
Analysis of Quantitative Data
After collecting, organizing, and coding the quantitative data, screening was
conducted for missing data, and outliers; and the assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity were performed prior to the major statistical analysis. Due to the small
sample size and the characteristics of the scale (i.e., 4-point Likert scale), no statistically
significant outlier was detected. Missing data were assessed for each variable. No
missing data were found for demographic variables. However, there were three missing
observations for three survey items associated with the cultural issue. The missing data
were nonsystematic and comprised of less than 10% of the entire sample. Therefore, the
listwise deletion technique for the missing values was selected for the major statistical
analysis. To minimize Type II error in inferential testing, alpha (i.e., the level of
significance) was set at .15, which is reasonable if the sample size is small (Stephens,
2002).
Descriptive statistical analyses utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 16 were conducted for each group. A Multivariate Analysis of
76
Variance (MANOVA) was employed to provide the most valid answer to the research
questions.
Analysis of Qualitative Data
Data reduction techniques were utilized in analyzing the interview data.
An open coding system was developed to organize and summarize participant responses
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Multiple readings of the transcripts were completed to
ensure that the codes were reflective of the overall meaning-making of each participant.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was, “What are the district criteria for referral of students to
Gifted and Talented programs?” The findings are detailed herein.
Background of the GATE Plan
Content analysis was conducted on the district’s current GATE program plan, and
Board Policies and Administrative Regulations related to the GATE program. Results
indicated that because of a history of significant racial issues within the district, a
mandatory order to desegregate and integrate the schools in the early 1960s was issued by
the Federal Government. This resulted in the establishment of Magnet Programs within
the district. To integrate the schools, three GATE Magnet Programs were established on
the west side of the district, which was a predominantly African American community.
Even with the establishment of the Magnet Programs, the majority of students
enrolled in these schools were Caucasian, with admission to the programs being made by
teacher or parent referral and (subjectively) determined by the results of traditional IQ
tests. This was also influenced by whether or not the parent was a high level employee of
the district. Teachers selected for these programs were the top performing teachers in the
77
district. District records indicate that at the inception of the Magnet Programs, there were
no teachers of color within these programs. In 1970, a group of parents filed a complaint
with the Office of Civil Rights, which resulted in a change in the referral and screening
process. In 1982 and as is the current practice, the district began to conduct blanket
testing of all students at grades 2 and 6 (changed to grade 4 in 2008) utilizing the Raven’s
Progressive Matrices, a non-verbal assessment. Based on a qualifying score on the
Raven’s, along with qualifying scores from state standardized tests, students are
identified as gifted. These scores determine student assignment to various categories
which include intellectual, highly intellectual, and gifted. Students identified as gifted are
eligible for placement in the Special Day Classes within the GATE Magnet program.
Students with the other designations are eligible for enrichment activities and may be
clustered at their home schools in the regular educational program. If space permits, then
students identified as intellectual and highly intellectual are offered placement into the
Magnet Programs on a case-by-case basis and by teacher recommendation.
Even with these modifications to the referral process, students of color or students
with limited English Proficiency were not equitably represented within the GATE Magnet
program. As a result, entry criteria were reviewed and modified to consider impact factors.
These factors may be used to provide alternative entry criteria for qualifying students as a
tool to increase access for students from underserved populations and students with other
risk factors.
District Referral and Screening Process
According to the district’s GATE Plan, district identification procedures and
criteria for Advanced Learner Programs are designed to be inclusive of all ethnic,
78
social, economic, and linguistic groups. All students in the district are universally
screened with parent permission during the second, fourth, and sixth grades, utilizing
the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Formally, GATE programs begin in third grade
after screening results, and achievement data have been reviewed. According to the
district’s current GATE Plan, parents may request additional testing or alternative
assessment. Testing is limited to once per calendar year. Non-identified students
may be referred to the director of Advanced Learner Programs through the Student
Study Team (SST) process, where a committee is convened to determine
appropriateness of placement and qualifications under alternative placement criteria.
During the current study, no district records were located indicating teacher or parent
referrals for GATE screening.
District GATE Identification Criteria
The California Department of Education (CDE) administers the GATE program,
which provides funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop unique education
opportunities for high-achieving and underachieving pupils in California public schools
(CDE, 2005). The GATE program has been authorized under the Education Code (EC)
sections 5220-2212. Each school district’s governing board determines the criteria used to
identify students for participation in the GATE program.
In 2009, the district completed a review of all board policies, procedures, and
regulations related to gifted education. A representative group of parents, teachers, and
administrators K-12 analyzed the results of current identification processes and voted to
continue the universal screening practices in place for GATE identification and the existing
79
qualifying criteria. According to the district’s current GATE plan, GATE categories and
identification criteria are:
1. Qualifying score on universal screening with Raven’s Progressive Matrices.
2. Intellectual Ability - targets highly gifted students who demonstrate superior

intellectual development measured by standard intelligence tests.
3. High Achievement - targets students who consistently score exceptionally high on

standardized achievement tests.
4. Specific Academic - targets high school students who function at highly advanced
levels in specific academic areas.
5. Alternative Assessment - targets students from underrepresented linguistic, economic,

and cultural groups.
6. Talent in Visual Arts - pilot program to be developed for identification in the field of
visual arts.
Impact Factors and Alternative Criteria
Impact Factors are also considered in the identification process. Impact Factors
are defined as identifiable factors that apply to students whose life circumstances could
reasonably be expected to negatively impact the demonstration of full potential on the
testing instrument. State GATE regulations require that pertinent evidence as to a
student’s capacity for excellence far beyond that of chronological peers shall reflect
consideration of the economic, linguistic, and cultural characteristics of the student’s
background (CDE, 2005). The following Impact Factors are considered during the
identification process:
Category 1: Language/Culture
Category 2: Economic Status (free and reduced lunch)
Category 3: Environment (attendance/homeless)
Category 4: Health
80
District Data Trends
Based on AERIES, the district’s student data system over the last 3 years (2009-
2011), 18,363 students have participated in the universal screening process.
Demographic data for these students are reflected in Table 3. Of the 18,363 students
tested, 2,270 students were actually GATE identified. One-hundred eighty-two
(approximately 8%) of the identified students were African American. African American
students represent approximately 15% of the district population. Compared to enrollment
demographics, Asian and White students are overrepresented in GATE identification
while Latino and African Americans are underrepresented; African Americans have the
highest underrepreseantation. District records indicated that between 2009-2011, one
student was identified by Alternative Criteria. However, district records did not indicate
the ethnicity or the basis for the identification.
Table 3
Demographics for Students Screened from 2009-2011
Ethnicity Number of Students Percent of Students Screened

American Indian 218 1.20
Asian 348 1.90
Pacific Islander 84 0.50
Filipino 78 0.40
Hispanic/Latino 13,023 70.90
African American 2,148 11.70
White 1,507 8.20
Other 957 5.20
81
Teacher Knowledge of the District Criteria
A MANOVA was performed to test for overall differences of teacher knowledge
between teachers with MI Theory training and those without MI Theory trainings on
knowledge of district criteria. Dependent variables were the five knowledge variables of
District Referral Criteria (District Criteria), District Training on Referral Process (District
Training), Alternative Identification Criteria (Alternative Criteria), Consideration of
Teacher Referrals to Gifted and Talented Programs (Teacher Referrals), and All Teachers
Should Receive MI Theory Training. The independent variables are Teachers with MI
Theory training and those without MI Theory training.
The Box Test of Equality of Covariance Matrix revealed that equal variances can
be assumed, F(15, 35) = 1.380, p = .15. Therefore, Wilks’s lambda was used as a test
statistic. To minimize Type II error in inferential testing, alpha (i.e., the level of
significance) was set at .15, which is reasonable if the sample size is small (Stephens,
2002). Wilks’s Λ = .79, F(5,33) = 1.77, p = .15, η2 = .21 indicated a significant
difference (based on the adjusted alpha level) between teachers with MI Theory training
and teachers without MI Theory training, with 21% of the combined variance for teacher
knowledge based on the five dependent variables. This indicates a large effect size.
Teacher Knowledge of District Alternative Criteria
The post hoc univariate ANOVA noted in Table 4 reflects that having knowledge
of Alternative Criteria makes a unique contribution to teacher knowledge of alternative
referral criteria F(1,37) = 6.52, p = .015, partial η2 = .15. Survey results indicated that a
statistically significant difference was noted between teachers with training in MI Theory
and those teachers without MI Theory training. The Knowledge of Alternative Referral
82
Table 4
Univariate Analysis of Variance for Knowledge of District Referral Criteria
Variable F(1, 37) p η2
District Criteria .11 .74 .00
District Training .26 .61 .01
Alternative Criteria 6.52 .02 .15
Teacher Referrals .33 .57 .01
Teachers Trained on MIT .37 .55 .01
Note. F ratios are Wilks’s approximation of F.
and Identification Criteria made a unique contribution to teacher differences in teacher
knowledge of district criteria in the referral of students to Gifted and Talented Education
programs for teachers with MI Theory training.
Teacher Training on the Referral Process
Responses from qualitative data supported the finding. Overall, four of the six
interview participants believed that GATE Certification training increased their
knowledge and awareness of MI Theory and deepened their conceptual understanding of
the district’s alternative referral and identification criteria, particularly regarding a
conceptual understanding of how the impact factors related to the referral of
underrepresented students to GATE programs. Lynn, Pamela, Carla, and Wanda
indicated that they learned about the referral process and the district timelines for
referring students through their GATE trainings. When responding to the question,
“What is the GATE identification process in your district?” these participants further
83
demonstrated an existing knowledge of the district’s impact factors. They demonstrated
an awareness of the district’s alternative referral and identification criteria for students
with specific risk factors and those from underrepresented populations. Wanda knew that
the district conducts universal screenings; and through her GATE trainings, she learned
that parents and teachers could nominate students, although she had never seen that
happen.
In contrast, Ilene and Jan indicated that although they had GATE and MI training,
their school did not place an emphasis on GATE or gifted students. Rather, their school
focused more on at-risk students and interventions, thus, reflecting them having limited
knowledge of the alternative criteria or the impact factors.
Some teachers were not aware of the significance of their roles in the referral
process. Pamela stated, “Most of my colleagues don’t have a clue about gifted students
or our district’s referral process.” Lynn said, “Most teachers just know that they get
permission slips to send home; but they may or may not send them home, particularly if
the student is low performing or is a behavior problem.”
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was, “Are there differences in the conceptions of referral
criteria of teachers with training in MI Theory vs. teachers without training in MI
Theory?” Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to answer this
research question. For the quantitative component, a MANOVA was performed to test
for overall differences and the significance of main effects and interaction between
teachers with and without training in MI Theory. The seven dependent variables for
conceptions of referral criteria were (a) standardized tests, (b) teacher nominations, (c)
84
parent nominations, (d) peer nominations, (e) portfolios of student work, (f) performance
assessments by experts, and (g) observations. Wilks’s Λ = .80, F(7,29) = 1.01, p = .44
showed no statistical difference. However, partial eta square (η2 = .196) indicates a large
effect size. Mean differences are noted in Table 5.
A Test of Between Subjects Effects revealed the variable of Peer Nominations as
having an impact on the conceptions of referral criteria for teachers with training in MI
Theory vs. teachers without MI Theory training. See Table 6 for details.
An independent t test was conducted to determine the observed difference
between the two means. The t test for the Equality of Means indicated that variances for
the two groups differed significantly at the level of .15 in Peer Nominations, t(30) =
-2.17, p < .15, d = .0.66. The overall results indicated that the mean differences between
the two groups demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the area of Peer
Nominations. Results of the data analysis demonstrated that teachers with training in MI
Table 5
Means of Teacher Conceptions of Referral Criteria
Variable Teachers with No MIT Teachers with MIT

Training Training
M SD M SD
Standardized Tests 2.64 .76 2.57 .87
Teacher Nominations 3.00 .56 3.04 .48
Parent Nominations 2.36 .92 2.57 .59
Peer Nominations 2.07 .27 2.43 .73
Portfolios of Student Work 2.71 .99 2.91 .67
Performance Assessments 3.36 .48 3.13 .55
Observations 3.29 .47 3.09 .52
85
Table 6
Univariate Analysis of Variance for Conception of Referral Criteria
Standardized Tests .07 .79 .00
Teacher Nominations .06 .80 .00
Parent Nominations .70 .41 .02
Peer Nominations 3.20 .08 .08
Portfolios of Student Work .53 .47 .02
Performance Assessments 1.59 .22 .04
Observations 1.39 .25 .04

Note. F ratios are Wilks’s approximation of F.
Theory believed to a greater degree that Peer Nominations can be an effective method for
identifying students for referral to GATE programs.
Qualitative data revealed that the majority of the teachers participating in the
interviews demonstrated a greater awareness of alternative criteria and a conceptual
difference in the possible pathways of referral for African American students to GATE
programs. When asked, “What may be traits that you believe gifted students
demonstrate?” Carla stated, “Having the GATE Certificate and knowing about MI
provides me with the framework for being open to seeking giftedness in other ways.”
When prompted to further explain, she responded that in order to receive her GATE
Certification, MI Theory was included in the training. She further responded that she
learned about the various types of intelligences and how students might demonstrate
intelligence or giftedness in different ways. She indicated that since the training, she had
86
been purposeful about providing a variety of learning activities for students to
demonstrate what they know. Jan’s equally insightful response was, “Currently, the way
we identify students weeds out, rather than seeks out students.” When asked to further
explain, she stated, “Well, we generally just look for the kids who are academically
strong, or high performers; we don’t actually focus on potential or talent development.”
When asked why she believed this to be the case, she stated, “That’s how the programs
are designed.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was, “Are there differences in the attitudes, perceptions, and
beliefs on giftedness of teachers with training in MI Theory vs. teachers with no MI
Theory training? To provide a quantitative basis for answering this research question, a
MANOVA tested for overall differences and the significance of main effects and
interaction between teachers with and without training in MI Theory on 19 dependent
variables of criteria for demonstration of giftedness. Wilks’s Λ = .55, F(1,37) = .92, p =
.15, η2 = .45 indicated that 45% of the generalized variance (a large effect size ) of the
19 dependent variables was explained by MI Theory training
The Test of Between-Subject Effects revealed a statistically significant difference
in Leadership Potential, Wilks’s Λ = .55, F(1,37) = 2.9, p = .10, η2 = .07, with Specific
Aptitude reflecting a marginal difference at Wilks’s Λ = .55, F(1,37) = 2.0, p = .16, η2 =
.05. Of the 19 variables, differences in means were noted on Specific Aptitude and
Leadership Potential as presented in Table 7. This difference reflected that teachers with
MI Theory training believed to a higher degree that giftedness might be demonstrated by
specific aptitude, such as doing well in a specific subject such as math, science, reading,
87
Table 7
Means for Criteria to Demonstrate Giftedness
Variable Teachers with No MIT Training Teachers with MIT Training

M SD M SD
Specific Aptitude 2.87 .74 3.17 .57
Leadership Potential 3.33 .62 3.00 .59
or social studies. Conversely, mean differences indicated that teachers without training in
MI Theory believed to a greater degree that giftedness might be demonstrated by
Leadership Potential. As the means for Leadership Potential revealed a statistically
significant difference, an independent t test was conducted to determine the observed
difference between the means. The t test for the Equality of Means indicated that means
for the two groups differed at the level of .15 in Leadership Potential, t(37) = 1.69 p =
.15, d = .55.
Participant responses to the interview questions of “How do you define
giftedness?” and “What may be traits that you believe gifted students demonstrate?”
revealed that teachers with MI Theory training believed that giftedness was a construct
applied to a broad spectrum of high-level abilities and demonstrated in domain specific
areas such as mathematics, science, or in non-traditional areas such as Leadership
Potential as noted in the quantitative findings. However, Jan thought that the way
giftedness is currently defined in her school is too narrow. Carla supported this
perspective, “Giftedness is multidimensional and multi-faceted and that school only
focuses on one type of giftedness.”
88
Lynn substantiated this awareness, “Giftedness can be impacted by many factors,
and that there is a need to better identify it in African American students.” When
prompted to explain what these factors might be, she indicated that some factors may
include life experiences and educational priorities, socioeconomic factors, and even
access to resources, particularly in her school, as they serve a high population of low-
socioeconomic or high poverty students. In response to beliefs on giftedness, Ilene
indicated, “Giftedness in real life may be viewed differently than giftedness in relation to
schooling; and for that reason, it may not be identified in some students….unless the
teacher knows what to look for.” When asked what types of things teachers should look
for, she responded, “Some students are out-of-the-box thinkers who just don’t test well,
but are very bright.” When asked for examples, she included attributes like catching on
quickly, being a critical thinker, or just coming up with a way to solve a problem in a way
that most other students wouldn’t even consider.
Teachers having MI Theory training with GATE certification also proposed
creating learning environments that could provide opportunities for students to
demonstrate and develop areas of giftedness. All interview participants indicated the
goal of ensuring that classroom instruction incorporated differentiated lessons allowing
varied learning styles. Wanda stated, “If teachers know and understand the different
attributes of giftedness, then they are more likely to contribute to the development of
unique talents and gifts in students.” When prompted for an example, she responded, “I
believe we would identify more gifted students if we identify or focus on how they learn
best. However, most teachers are just trying to get through the text or assessments.”
89
The qualitative data reflected that teacher beliefs and perceptions of students
impacted their expectations of students, as well as the types of instruction (rigor, depth,
and complexity) provided. Lynn said, “Teachers with a knowledge of GATE and MI are
generally more open to seeing different types of giftedness.” She indicated that with the
MI and GATE trainings, participating teachers sort of automatically begin to think of
how to challenge students. She admitted, however, “that most of her colleagues that
don’t have GATE students focus more on the remediation for lower performing
students.” When asked to share her perspective on intelligence, Carla stated that with her
training and understanding of MI Theory, she has been able to provide greater
opportunities for differentiated instruction and is more open to seeking opportunities for
students to demonstrate success in their areas of strength.
Although these teachers indicated the belief that giftedness can be multi-
dimensional, they shared concerns that current GATE programs are being not designed to
support non-traditional forms of giftedness, and that program placement criteria, as noted
in the quantitative data, excludes many students who demonstrate giftedness in other
ways from gaining access to the programs. Wanda substantiated this observation, “A
teacher’s knowledge about giftedness impacts what they believe about gifted students,
and who they see as gifted.” For example, she admitted that when preparing for her
GATE or Challenge students, she gives much thought to her instructional planning and
the types of lessons and extension activities that she has to prepare, because she knows
the students are bright and need to be challenged. So, she provides activities to meet
various learning styles and intelligences.
90
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was, “How do cultural factors impact teacher perceptions of
giftedness in African American students among teachers with MI Theory training vs.
teachers without MI Theory training and the referral of African American students to
Gifted and Talented Education programs? Quantitative data to address this question was
obtained with a MANOVA performed on eight dependent variables reflecting culture. A
follow-up analysis was conducted with qualitative data to deepen the researcher’s
understanding of teacher beliefs and perceptions. The MANOVA tested for overall
differences and the significance of main effects. The eight dependent variables reflecting
culture were: Differences in Language Experiences, Home Environment, Impact on
School, Use of Traditional IQ Tests, Perception of Giftedness, Use of Non-Standard
English, Placement Criteria, and Easily Identified in Classroom.
The Box Test of Equality of Covariance Matrix revealed that equal variances
could not be assumed, F(36, 26) = 1.60, p = .014. Therefore, Pillai’s Trace was used.
Use of Pillai’s Trace is more robust as sample size decreases (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). A statistically significant interaction was noted on the effect of MI Theory
training, Pillai V = .39, F(8,26) = 2.06, p = .08, η2 = .39, which indicates that 39% of the
combined variance (a large effect size) was accounted for by MI Theory training.
The Test of Between Subject Effects was conducted on eight dependent variables
reflecting Culture. As noted in Table 8, Culture and Perception of Giftedness, Use of
Non-Standard English, and Placement Criteria were statistically significant, with effect
sizes ranging from a low of .09 to a high of .14, respectively.
91
Table 8
Univariate Analysis of Variance for Impact of Culture on Perception with MI Theory
Training
Differences in Language Experiences .03 .86 .00
Home Environment .94 .34 .03
Impact on School .42 .52 .01
Use of Traditional IQ Tests .74 .40 .02
Culture and Perception of Giftedness 3.18 .08 .09
Use of Non-Standard English 5.19 .03 .14
Placement Criteria 5.19 .03 .14
Easily Identified in Classroom .88 .36 .03

Note. F ratios are Pillai’s Trace approximation of F.
Subsequently, a comparison of means was conducted to determine the
significance of the observed difference in means between the two groups on these three
variables. Table 9 presents a comparison of means of the three significant variables. A
lower response rating indicated that teachers believed to a lesser degree that these factors
impacted their perceptions of giftedness in African American students.
An independent t test was conducted to determine the significance of the mean
difference between the dependent variables of Culture and Perception of Giftedness, Use
of Non-Standard English, and Placement Criteria. Results indicated that at 76%, the
greatest effect size between groups, was noted in teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, and
beliefs on giftedness and the Use of Non-Standard English, t(35) = -2.213, p < .15, d =
92
Table 9
Means for Impact of Culture on Teacher Perception
Variable Teachers with No MIT Teachers with MIT

Training Training
M SD M SD
Culture and Perception
of Giftedness 3.57 .51 3.19 .68
Use of Non-Standard
English 2.71 .61 2.14 .79
Placement Criteria 2.14 .86 1.62 .50

Note. MIT = Multiple Intelligence Theory training
0.76. These results indicated that teachers with the training were more knowledgeable
about students’ use of Non-Standard English or African American Vernacular English
and how it impacted perceptions of intelligence and giftedness.
In the interviews, participants were asked to respond to the statement, “Current
data and research indicates that minority students, particularly African American
students, are under-identified and underrepresented in Gifted and Talented Programs.
Share your thoughts on what you think may be contributing factors.” Carla said,
“Teachers’ beliefs on intelligence and giftedness is influenced by the students’ use of
language, and how parents communicate and use language can also impact teacher
perception of giftedness in their children.” Wanda reiterated this saying, “Being aware of
differences in communication styles can impact what teachers think about students’ and
parents’ intellect. How parents speak and interact with teachers and the school often
impacts how their children are perceived and treated.” This was reflected in her
statement, “The way that people speak and communicate can depend on their culture and
93
home environment, and if teachers don’t understand this, they may look down on them or
not place any value on what they are saying.”
Five participants indicated that they had recently learned about African American
Vernacular English at a district training and were working to better understand students’
use of home language, how it differs from school or academic language, and that it is
different and not deficit. These participants further indicated that communication styles
might be culturally rooted, could impact student/teacher relationships, and could affect
teachers’ ability to identify giftedness. This was substantiated by Ilene who stated,
“Cultural backgrounds can impact how both students and teachers approach life, which
can in turn impact how they learn and process information.” Pamela responded, “Some
cultures are more verbally expressive, and sometimes teachers perceive this as being
aggressive.” Most poignantly, Lynn stated, “If cultural behaviors, including how
students speak and interact with each other, are not understood by the teacher, this can
impact their abilities to see the student’s potential for giftedness.
A common belief in the interview responses for these teachers was that the
cultural values of teachers and educators could influence and often determine what was
looked for in gifted students. Pamela commented, “Certain traits of giftedness are
perceived as valuable by different cultures, like oral traditions, music, and dance, which
are areas in which many African American students excel. These may not be perceived
as highly valued in other cultures.”
Reflected in all participant responses was the belief that the lack of cultural
sensitivity can result in the negative misperceptions of student behaviors and that these
misperceptions can influence and impact whether teachers see or even seek giftedness in
94
students. Jan stated, “Cultural factors may impact how a student solves problems and
that high levels of creativity may not be easily identified if teachers themselves are not
out of the box thinkers.”
Lynn, Carla, Pamela, and Ilene believed that traits of giftedness or perceived
giftedness could be culturally bound or “may be perceived differently by different
cultures.” When given the opportunity to share her thoughts on why African American
students could be underrepresented in GATE programs, Pamela stated, “Teachers’
experiences and their own cultural orientation can influence their perceptions of
giftedness.” In response to the same question, Wanda stated, “In many cases, a teacher’s
perception of giftedness is shaped by how mainstream (Euro-centric) culture defines it.”
When prompted for an example, she responded, “All types of giftedness is not valued
equally, and schools seem to only value giftedness in the area of high academics because
that’s what we focus on.” Jan admittedly responded, “Teachers need more training in
concrete ways to seek out giftedness in African American students.”
Summary of the Findings
Quantitative findings for Research Question 1 indicated that, in general, teacher
knowledge regarding district policies of GATE program criteria was minimal.
Questionnaire results indicated that a statistically significant difference was noted
between teachers with training in MI Theory and those teachers without MI Theory
training, with the Knowledge of Alternative Referral and Identification Criteria making a
unique contribution to teacher differences in teacher knowledge of district criteria in the
referral of students to GATE programs. Qualitative data supported this finding. For
Research Question 2, differences were noted in the conception of referral criteria, with
95
teachers with MI Theory training reflecting the need for alternative pathways such as use
of Peer Nominations as a method for identifying students for referral to GATE programs.
For Research Question 3, an unanticipated quantitative finding reflected a statistical
difference between the two groups and indicated that teachers without MI Theory training
believed to a greater degree in Leadership Potential as criteria for demonstration of
giftedness. Findings for Research Question 4 reflected that teachers having received
training in MI Theory demonstrated greater knowledge of cultural factors relating to
students’ use of non-standard English as making a significant impact on teacher
perception of giftedness in African American students.
96
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the knowledge of Howard
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (1983, 2006, 2011) on teacher attitudes,
perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness and the referral of African American students to
Gifted and Talented Education programs. The study was conducted in a large urban
school district in Southern California using a mixed-methods research design with data
collected from a survey on teacher perceptions and beliefs on giftedness, followed by
semi-structured individual interviews with six teachers and an in-depth analysis of the
referral criteria, referral procedures, and identification trends of the district’s GATE
program. Data from these sources were collected from 39 participants and triangulated to
best answer the research questions.
Results indicated that in both groups, teacher knowledge regarding district
policies on GATE program criteria were minimal. Questionnaire results showed that
teachers with MI Theory training had higher scores on Knowledge of Alternative Referral
and Identification Criteria than teachers without MI training. The qualitative data
indicated that these participants demonstrated a greater knowledge of the characteristics
of giftedness, interact more with gifted students, and share a broader understanding of
how “giftedness” may be perceived and demonstrated. In terms of group differences in
conceptions of referral criteria, teachers with MI training indicated Peer Nominations as a
possible method for identifying students for referral to GATE programs. Both qualitative
97
and quantitative results indicated that teachers in this study with training in MI Theory
were more knowledgeable about cultural factors such as the impact of the use of non-
standard English on teacher perception of giftedness in African American students.
Three aspects of practice were noted as possible factors impacting the referral and
access of African American students to GATE programs. They are (a) teachers’ limited
knowledge of district referral criteria and subjective tendencies, (b) the need to apply a
broadened perspective of giftedness, and (c) the impact of teacher awareness of cultural
factors on the perception of giftedness.
Teachers’ Limited Knowledge of Referral Criteria and Subjective Tendencies
The results of this study indicated that teacher knowledge of the district’s referral
criteria or the process was limited at best. Differences in teacher levels of knowledge of
the district referral criteria were evident in quantitative data as well as in responses from
the semi-structured interviews. Interview responses regarding the district’s screening,
referral, and GATE identification processes reflected that teacher beliefs about students’
abilities influenced teacher referrals of students for district-wide screening and, thus, the
ability for students to access these programs. Qualitative data also reflected the belief
that most teachers in the district did not actively seek students with potential, but simply
relied on the “universal screening” process for referrals.
Teachers’ own sense of adequacy about the process of identification may play a
role in the nomination process (Siegle et al., 2010). Teachers In this study with no MI
Theory training did not have a clear understanding of the district’s referral criteria or the
referral process. Without a clear understanding of the criteria or process, those who are
98
asked to nominate students must rely on previous training and/or stereotypes they have
developed (Siegle et al., 2010).
Teacher Knowledge of Alternative Criteria and Impact Factors
Teachers without MI Theory training did not demonstrate knowledge of the
district’s Alternative Referral Criteria. They were not aware of Impact Factors, which
are considered in the district’s GATE Alternative Criteria for the identification process.
Impact Factors are defined as identifiable factors that apply to students whose life
circumstances could reasonably be expected to negatively impact the demonstration of
full potential on the testing instrument. State GATE regulations require that pertinent
evidence as to a student’s capacity for excellence far beyond that of chronological peers
shall reflect consideration of the economic, linguistic, and cultural characteristics of the
student’s background (CDE, 2005). Pierce et al. (2007) noted that without specific
criteria, teachers develop their own conceptions of giftedness and identify students who
fit these conceptions. They also found that teachers who are unsure of whether students
are gifted are less likely to recognize students’ strengths. For teachers in this study, the
MI Theory training increased their knowledge of the district’s referral and identification
process, as well as knowledge of the Impact Factors and Alternative Criteria.
The Referral Process
All students in the district are universally screened with parent permission during
the second, fourth, and sixth grades. GATE programs begin in third grade after screening
results and achievement data have been reviewed. However, even with the district’s hope
of identifying potentially gifted students through the universal screening process, there is
no formal structure for monitoring whether parents received the permission slips for
99
testing and minimal to no teacher follow-through for monitoring the return of the
permission slips. Teachers in this study indicated this to be the case, particularly if
students are a behavioral problem, and teachers do not perceive them as being potentially
gifted. According to Siegle and Powell (2004), “Because teachers’ ratings of students
play an important role in identifying gifted students, it is important to investigate whether
teachers’ beliefs, stereotypes, biases and expectations influence their selection of students
for gifted and talented programs” (p. 21).
Spiers, Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, and Dixon (2007) noted teacher referrals as a
contributing factor to the problem of underrepresentation of minority students in gifted
programs. Elhoweris (2008) posited that the first step to addressing the
underrepresentation issue is to focus on recruitment. Colangelo and Davis (2003)
supported this premise and further indicated that recruitment in gifted education includes
screening, identification, and placement issues, which are all based on teacher referrals.
McBee (2006) reported that teacher referrals were more effective (accurate) for White
and Asian students than for African American and Latino students. McBee’s study
concluded that “inequalities in nominations, rather than assessments, may be the primary
source of underrepresentation of minority…..students in gifted programs” (p. 103).
Review of the literature highlighted the need for teachers to be knowledgeable and
informed regarding district referral criteria and the nomination process and aware of the
obstacles imposed to the referral of African American students to GATE programs by
their lack of knowledge of the process and their own biases.
Most teachers in this study indicated that through their MI Theory trainings, they
learned about the referral process and district criteria and timelines for referring students,
100
all of which enhanced their knowledge of the district’s assessment protocol and process.
Additionally, interview participants indicated that as a result of the MI Theory training,
they demonstrated greater knowledge of various types of intelligences and forms of
giftedness and greater awareness of the district’s impact factors. This supports
understanding of the district’s alternative referral and identification criteria for students
with specific risk factors and students from underrepresented populations. Overall, the
findings indicate that teachers with MI Theory training supported the belief that the MI
training they received provided the background knowledge for their increased
understanding of the need to be more open to non-traditional pathways for referring,
nominating, and identifying African American students to GATE programs.
Teacher Conceptions of Referral Criteria
Overall, teachers with MI Theory training demonstrated that they believed an
effective pathway for referral of students to gifted and talented programs should include
non-traditional options. Teachers in this study were asked to identify pathways that they
believed to be effective in identifying students for referral to GATE programs, including
standardized tests, teacher nominations, parent nominations, peer nominations, portfolios
of student work, performance assessments, and observations.
Although no statistically significant difference was noted between the variables,
differences were noted in the means of the two groups in the area of peer nominations.
This finding revealed that teachers with MI Theory training believed to a greater degree
that peer nominations may be an effective method for identifying students for referral to
GATE programs. This finding is supported by Poulin and Dishion (2008) who indicated
that the most widely used method to measure sociometric status is peer nominations. The
101
construct of sociometric peer status has been extensively studied during childhood and to
a lesser extent during adolescence. According to Veronneau and Vitaro (2007),
sociometric peer status has received considerable attention in developmental psychology
because it can be predictive of social and academic domains. Poulin and Dishion also
indicated that in early adolescence, sociometric peer status is correlated with behavioral
and academic dimensions.
Alternative Pathways for Referral
The district under study should establish greater opportunities and expectations
for all teachers to gain knowledge and understanding of the district’s GATE program and
Alternative Referral Criteria. The district should utilize processes to ensure identification
through multiple pathways, utilizing alternative assessments that support diverse student
populations and those that are more aligned with current research on giftedness and
current theories of intelligence. A potential pathway for the referral of African American
students identified from the findings of this study includes peer nominations.
Peer nominations as an alternative pathway for referral to GATE programs is an
untapped resource that may be a viable tool to increase the participation and retention of
African American students within GATE programs. The retention of students of color in
advanced learner programs continues to decline as these students often feel isolated and
disconnected from their peers who are not in such programs. In exploring peer
nominations as a referral pathway for African American students, attending to the social
and emotional development of identified students will be critical to their success.
Research has shown that for African American students, particularly African
American males, peer interactions have a significant impact on how students perceive
102
being “smart”. Fordham and Ogbu (1986) noted a phenomenon called “Acting White”
in which African American students feel ostracized by their peers for demonstrating
interest in and high levels of success in academics. Due to changing demographics and
increases in diversity, sociometric techniques have expanded to include the aspects of
ethnicity, gender, and language in understanding peer relationships (Bellmore, Nishina,
Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2007). Research conducted by Jackson, Barth, Powell,
and Lochman (2006) on the effects of race on children’s peer nominations found that
Black children generally receive poorer social status assessments when they are the
minority in the classroom compared to when they hold the majority, suggesting that a
child’s race might be a key characteristic in the identification of students who do not “fit
in” with the general class. Bellmore et al. indicated the significance of acknowledging
ethnic context in understanding students’ peer nominations.
To reduce the underrepresentation of African America students in GATE
programs, the district under study must ensure that all teachers know the referral criteria
and process, have a greater understanding of the traits that gifted and potentially gifted
students demonstrate, and specifically monitor the referral processes for the targeted
population. Additionally, as inequities in the representation of African American
students exist in the district’s GATE programs, a more focused process for the
distribution and return of permissions for district-wide screenings should be established
and monitored for African American students at both the site and district levels.
The Need for a Broadened Perspective of Giftedness
Currently in most schools, definitions of giftedness and the structures of GATE
programs do not align with recent research or perspectives of intelligence and giftedness.
103
Furthermore, current definitions of giftedness vary greatly from state to state. Findings
from this study indicated that a paradigm shift in referral and assessment procedures
could contribute significantly to the solution of minority students’ underrepresentation in
gifted programs by utilizing broadened definitions of intelligence and giftedness and to
establish programs that support talent development and the seeking of potentially gifted
students. This shift in paradigm will require extensive teacher training on characteristics
of giftedness, addressing teacher assumptions and beliefs about giftedness, restructuring
of gifted programs, and “focusing” on student potential and talent development to support
greater access for underrepresented students to GATE programs.
An unanticipated finding in this study was that teachers without MI training found
Leadership Potential to be a possible criterion for demonstration of giftedness. This
finding may be grounded in the fact that these teachers may have limited knowledge of
many of the elitist views associated with many GATE programs, and they view
Leadership Potential completely separate from academics. Even though some teachers
with MI training indicated a belief that intelligence and giftedness are multifaceted and
demonstrated in many ways, overall, they believe that potential giftedness is still best
demonstrated by high academic performance. It must be noted, however, that this finding
was not substantiated by all participants, particularly those with greater knowledge of the
characteristics of giftedness. This unanticipated finding may support Ford et al.’s (2005)
indication that even after 7 decades, African American students continue to be under-
identified in gifted education.
104
Multiple Intelligence Theory and Teacher Perception
Interview participants in this study indicated that as a result of the MI Theory
training, they demonstrated greater knowledge of various types of intelligences and forms
of giftedness. These participants indicated that the MI Theory training broadened their
perspectives on differentiating instruction to support students’ learning styles to access
the various intelligences and build on students’ strengths. MI Theory presents multiple
opportunities to assess and encourage a child’s evolving profile of intelligences by
bringing the assessment process out of the testing room and into the classroom (Ramos-
Ford & Gardner, 1997). As researchers and educators seek to define giftedness with
goals of being more inclusive of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, theories
of intelligence have evolved. The identification and assessment of gifted students, how
giftedness and gifted students are viewed, program models, and other components of
gifted services are influenced by theories of intelligence (Plucker, 2001). Theories of
intelligence can serve as a basis for educators to enhance the services provided to gifted
and talented students, particularly African Americans. One such theory that supports the
promise of capturing the strengths, abilities, and talents of African American students is
Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI). Gardner’s Theory of Multiple
Intelligences is one of the most widely used learning theories by schools with respect to
gifted education services (Kornhaber, 2004; Plucker, 2001; Ramos-Ford & Gardner,
1997). MI Theory expands beyond the child gifted in linguistic and logic related areas to
encompass students with a variety of talents in other areas of strength. Nieto and Bode
(2008) emphasized the implications of multiple intelligences for culturally responsive
teaching to improving schooling for cultural minorities teaching due to social, political,
105
or geographic circumstances. Many members of a given culture may be more advanced
in one intelligence than members of another culture.
Sarouphim (2001) utilized the alternative assessment DISCOVER (Discovering
Intellectual Strengths and Capabilities through Observation while allowing for Varied
Ethnic Responses), which is grounded in MI Theory, to investigate its effectiveness in
identifying gifted minority students. The results of this study indicated that a paradigm
shift in assessment procedures could contribute significantly to the solution of minority
students’ underrepresentation in gifted programs. Because Gardner’s MI Theory is not
culturally biased against students from diverse cultures and ethnic backgrounds (Ford,
1996), the gifts and talents of African American students are more likely to be identified
and nurtured rather than ignored or overlooked by teachers.
As such, for the district under study, all teachers should receive training on
Multiple Intelligence Theory. Teachers using MI Theory focus on student strengths and
look at a broader range of abilities (Chen et al., 1998; Kornhaber & Krechevsky, 1995).
Leadership and Giftedness Potential
A significant finding from this research highlights the need for greater focus on
leadership as acknowledged in the current federal definition of giftedness. The
questionnaire utilized in this study listed traditional traits such as standardized testing and
specific aptitude and ability, along with multiple intelligence traits such as creativity and
leadership ability for demonstrating giftedness. Questionnaire responses indicated that,
in general, teachers without training in MI Theory believe to a higher degree that
Leadership Potential may be criteria for demonstrating giftedness. This may be attributed
to the fact that teachers with MI Theory training or GATE certification may have less
106
interaction with students who have been formally identified by traditional standardized or
IQ testing methods, and they may view student abilities in the area of leadership as a
potential strength separate from academics. Teachers without MI Theory training
indicated Leadership Potential as a possible criteria for demonstrating giftedness,
whereas teachers with MI Theory training did not view Leadership Potential as a
potential criteria for demonstrating giftedness. This finding highlights the need for
ongoing programmatic and philosophical changes even within GATE programs to
redefine the entrenched stereotypical framework of giftedness as being perceived and
demonstrated unilaterally as high academic performance,.
A difference in perspective and beliefs on giftedness was noted by teachers
participating in the interview process. Qualitative findings from these teachers reflected
that MI Theory training, along with knowledge of the various characteristics of
giftedness, provided them with a broader understanding of how giftedness is both
perceived and demonstrated. An inference may be drawn that the more knowledgeable
teachers are about giftedness and the various attributes of giftedness, the more likely they
are to acknowledge various types of giftedness. However, these teachers acknowledged
that current GATE program designs still primarily focus only on academic areas. Even
so, these teachers appeared to have a better understanding of congressional mandates
such as Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Javits Act of 1998 supported
by recommendations from the National Association for Gifted Children (2004); and they
underscored the importance of “high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual,
creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields” (p. 27).
107
Leadership ability is a key area highlighted in the federal definition of giftedness.
This area provides great opportunity to promote gifts and talents, particularly those of
African American males. However, despite this recognition, leadership remains the most
under-investigated aspect of the several domains that define giftedness (Matthews, 2004).
As such, the district should explore establishing GATE program models that support
areas of giftedness such as leadership, as aligned with the current federal definition of
giftedness.
Teacher Awareness of Cultural Factors and the Perception of Giftedness
To address the problems related to underrepresentation of minorities in gifted
programs, teachers must rethink how they define and evaluate students’ academic
potential, as they see students and themselves through cultural lenses (Milner & Ford,
2007). This includes developing a greater understanding of the use of language, cross-
cultural communication styles and building on the cultural capital that these students
bring into the classroom learning environment.
Teacher perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs can be culturally laden, which also
impact their beliefs on giftedness. To increase the number of African American student
referrals and placements into gifted programs, classroom teachers must increase their
cultural intelligence of this ethnic group (Elhoweris et al., 2005). Teachers must learn
how characteristics used for identifying gifted behaviors may differ in a cultural context;
and these behaviors influence identification of giftedness in culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse students (Briggs et al., 2008).
A major finding from this research indicated that cultural factors impact teacher
perception of giftedness in African American students. Of the variables tested reflecting
108
culture, use of Non-Standard English yielded the greatest effect size at 76%. In the
questionnaire, participants were asked to rank their responses from low to high if they
agreed that Non-Standard English and African American Vernacular English prevent
students from performing well enough in school to be nominated for GATE programs. A
lower response rating indicated that teachers believed to a lesser degree that this factor
impacts their perception of giftedness in African American students. These results
appear to indicate that teachers with MI Theory training are more knowledgeable about
students’ use of Non-Standard English or African American Vernacular English and how
it may impact perceptions of intelligence and giftedness in the referral process.
African Americans have a rich, creative, and abundant history of complex
language development and use, which is evident in the use of great oratory, literature, and
music. A 30-year body of research (Adger, Christian, & Taylor, 1999) supports the
knowledge and understanding of the language development and experiences, which trace
the development of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to the diaspora of
enslaved people of African descent. What is most important to note is that this
systematic and ruled governed language, while containing differing elements than
Standard American English or SAL, is not deficient and reflects the home language of
many African American students.
As the findings in this study indicate, teachers often perceive student use of
African American Vernacular English as negative. Clark (2007) stated, “Research has
shown that teachers often have low expectations for diverse students. Advocates of this
point of view refer to such expectations as deficit thinking” (p. 61). In many cases, this
causes students to doubt their own ability and to sabotage their own achievement; this is a
109
certain detriment to potentially gifted African American students. To meet the needs of
culturally and linguistically diverse students, a change in how educators view these
students must occur. Additionally, knowledge of African American Vernacular English
must be incorporated into the culture and work of schools as an asset for building
knowledge and access to gifted programs.
Teachers must receive ongoing training in multicultural education and culturally
responsive teaching practices so they understand the importance of cultural differences
evidenced by the students in their classrooms and know how to capitalize on cultural and
linguistic diversity when planning instruction. As increasing the representation of
African American students in GATE programs has been identified as a district initiative,
teachers should be provided with training on the unique barriers that African American
students face in relation to access GATE programs such as the Critical Race Theory, peer
pressure, code switching, and the use of Non-Standard English or AAVE.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study are supported by current literature, which indicates
teachers as the gatekeepers for equitable access to GATE programs. Understanding
practitioner beliefs related to the identification of gifted students is related to any and all
attempts to improve equity and excellence in gifted education programs (Schroth &
Helfer, 2008). Factors such as knowledge and understanding of district GATE program
criteria, awareness of the attributes of giftedness along with a knowledge of Multiple
Intelligence Theory, and teacher awareness of cultural factors all impact teacher beliefs
and student access to GATE programs. The following major considerations noted from
this study serve as implications for practice:
110
1. Develop district referral policies and criteria that guide and monitor the
process for the identification of diverse student populations, ensuring multiple
pathways for seeking and developing talent potential.
2. Establish systems for continuous school site and district level evaluation of
Gifted and Talented Education programs to ensure effectiveness in serving
underrepresented student populations.
3. Develop and embrace new constructs of giftedness that are multi-faceted,
multicultural, and multi-dimensional.
4. Provide ongoing staff development that addresses cultural differences,
stereotypes, and prejudices.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
This term refers to the applicability of the research findings beyond the target
research sample as well as the extent to which the research participants might offer
similar responses in various contexts (Moffett, 2005). Therefore, researcher-controlled
limitations as determined by the research design and context may limit the
generalizability of the research results.
Two limitations were associated with this study. First, the generalizability was
limited to the small number of elementary teachers participating in the study; findings
may not be representative of the experiences of all elementary teachers who participate in
the nomination of African American students for GATE programs. Secondly, as the
location of this study was limited to a large southern California school district with
demographic and historical issues involving desegregation and the development of GATE
111
Magnet programs, these characteristics or attributes may not be representative of other
school districts
Schools and districts should make every effort to identify a representative
proportion of the African American student population for participation in GATE
programs. Baldwin (2004) indicated the need for more research and relevance of
identification processes for recognizing gifted African American students. Frasier,
Garcia, and Passow (1995a) asserted that additional research pertaining to the referral or
nomination process is necessary. They purported that future studies should include
changes in teacher attitudes, skills, and understanding of the manifestations of gifted and
talented potential among diverse groups and the need to help teachers improve their skills
and understanding of the referral process. This research supports the fact that these
issues are still relevant. Recommendations for further research include the following:
1. A longitudinal study may be conducted to determine implications of this
district’s Impact Factors and the retention of African American students
within Gifted and Talented Education programs.
2. Expand the current study to include classroom observations of student and
teacher interactions.
3. Study the long-term effects of the use of district-wide screenings on the
representation of African American students in Gifted and Talented Education
programs.
4. Study the retention rates of elementary African American student cohorts
identified for Gifted and Talented Education programs and the retention rates
112
within Advanced Placement classes as students matriculate through secondary
school.
Conclusion
As the nation continues to reflect a more diverse student population, gifted
education programs should reflect changes in U.S. demographics. It is therefore vitally
important that public schools identify students from diverse cultural backgrounds and
provide them with equitable opportunities for access to GATE programs. For children to
thrive in today’s society, they must be educated beyond simple literacy. A solid
education is a necessity for gifted and “potentially gifted” students to realize their full
potential. After all, the gifted children of today will be the leaders of tomorrow in
medicine, business, politics, research, the arts, and beyond.
Unfortunately, schools have failed to accommodate the needs of minority gifted
students (Davis, 2010b). As such, ramifications to society have resulted in low
graduation rates, high dropout rates, and high crime levels and incarceration rates,
particularly for African American males. Although quantum leaps continue to be made
to better understand how educators define gifted and talented students, current disparities
in the representation of African American students in GATE programs continue to
illuminate the need to address causal factors in representational inequities. Ongoing
research indicates the need for further studies into programs, policies, and practices to
assist many gifted African American students in developing their untapped potential.
113
REFERENCES
Adger, C. T., Christian, D., & Taylor, O. (Eds.). (1999). Making connections: Language
academic achievement among African American students. McHenry, IL:
Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.
Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted
education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159-186.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research practice, and organizational change for psychologists.
American Psychologist, 58, 377-402.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Armstrong, T. (2006). The best schools: How human development research should
inform educational practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Armstrong, T. (2011). Multiple intelligences. Retrieved from
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.php
Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat
on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.
114
Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of human competence,
motivation, and self-concept. In C. Dweck & E. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of
competence & motivation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baldwin, A. (2002). Culturally diverse students who are gifted. Exceptionality,
10(2), 139-147.
Baldwin, A. Y. (Ed.). (2004). Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted
students: Essential readings in gifted education: Volume 6. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Baldwin, A. (2005). Identification concerns and promises for gifted students of diverse
populations. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 105-114.
Banks, J. A. (1979). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and
teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2006). Multicultural issues and perspectives
(6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward humanizing pedagogy.
Harvard Educational Review, 64, 173-194.
Baum, S., Viens, J., & Slatin, B. (2005). Multiple intelligences in the elementary
classroom: A teacher’s toolkit. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
115
Bellmore, A. D., Nishina, A., Witkow, M., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). The
influence of classroom ethnic composition on same and other ethnicity peer
nominations in middle school. Social Development, 16, 720-740.
Bennett, C. I. (2007). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. New
York, NY: Pearson Education.
Bernal, E. M. (1994). Finding and cultivating minority gifted/talented students.
Paper presented at the National Center on Alternative Teacher Certification,
Washington, DC.
Bernal, E. (2000). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of equitable
representation of culturally and linguistically different students in gifted and
talented programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 82-88.
Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Balantine Books.
Bogan, J. E. (1972). Some educational aspects of hemispheric specialization. Bulletin of
Los Angeles Neurological Society ,37, 49-61.
Boles, D., Barth, J., & Merrill, E. (2007). Asymmetry and performance: Toward a
neurodevelopmental theory. Brain and Cognition, 66, 124-139.
Bonner, F. A., II. (2001). Making room for the study of gifted African American males.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(6), 80.
Bonner, F., Lewis, C., Bowman-Perrott, L., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2009). Definition,
identification, identity, and culture: A unique alchemy impacting the success of
gifted African American millennial males in school. Journal of Gifted
Education, 33(2), 176-202.
116
Bordelon, D., & Banbury, M. (2005). Pursuing the perameters: Validating the multiple
intelligences inventory for teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3),
33-51.
Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no
conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd
ed., pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically
disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.
Borland, J. H., Schnur, J., & Wright, L. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and
under-represented gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, &
R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.,
pp. 587-594). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Boykin, W. (1994). Afrocultural expressions and its implications for schooling. In E. R.
Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 225-273). New York, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Boykin, A. W., & Ellison, C. M. (1995). The multiple ecologies of African American
youth socialization: An Afrographic analysis. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), African
American youth: Their economic status in the United States (pp. 93-128).
Westport, CT: Praeger Books.
Boykin, A., W., & Miller, O. A. (2005). In search of cultural themes and their
expressions in the dynamics of classroom life. Urban Education, 40, 521-549.
117
Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., Watkins-Lewis, K. M., & Kizzie, K. (2006). Culture in the
sanctioned classroom practices of elementary school teachers serving low-income
African American students. Journal of Education of Students Placed At-Risk, 11,
161-173.
Bradford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2008). In the brain and learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising
programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted
and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 131-145.
Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youth who reason exceptionally well
mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT: D4 model to develop their
talents. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20-37).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
Brown, S., Renzuli, J., Gibbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted
and Talented Child Quarterly, 49(1), 68-79.
Burk, K., & Dunn, R. (2003). Learning style-based teaching to raise minority student
test scores. The Social Studies Teacher, 23(6), 12-14.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
118
California Department of Education. (2005). Gifted and talented education program
guide. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Callahan, C. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice,
necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148-163.
Callahan, C. M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
12, 148-156.
Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38-51). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ceci, S. (1990). On intelligence….more or less. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chen, J. (2004). Theory of multiple intelligences: Is it a scientific theory? Teachers
College Record, 106(1), 17-23.
Chen, J., Krechevsky, M., & Viens, J. (1998). Building on children’s strengths: The
experiences of Project Spectrum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chiao, J., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D.,…Iidaka, T. (2009).
Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Cognitive
Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1, 1-11.
Chinn, P. C., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special
education classes. RASE, 8(4), 41-46.
Clark, B. (2007). Issues of identification and underrepresentation. Gifted Education
Communicator, 38(1), 22-25.
Colangelo, D., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
119
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cole, R. (2001). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Coleman L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to
development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification of children who are gifted. Arlington, VA:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Digest #644)
Cornell, G. D., Delcourt, M. A. B., Goldberg, M. D., & Bland, L. D. (1995).
Achievement and self concept of minority students in elementary school gifted
programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 189-209.
Connell, D. (2009, Fall). Global aspects of brain-based learning. Educational Horizons,
28-39.
Costa, A. (1985). Developing minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice-Hall.
120
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Social dominance, moral politics, and gifted
education. Roeper Review, 28(1), 21-30.
Davidson Institute. (2006). State mandates for gifted programs as of 2006. Retrieved
from http://www.gt-cybersource.org/StatePolicy
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, J. L. (2010a). From the inside out: Using cultural strengths to nurture African
American gifted learners. Gifted Educator Communicator, 41(2), 29-32.
Davis, J. (2010b). Bright, talented and Black: A guide for families of African American
gifted learners. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press, Inc.
De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Qi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining
educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority
students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-442.
Dean, R. (1984). Functional lateralization of the brain. Journal of Special Education,
18(3), 239-256.
Delgado-Gaitan, C., & Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Educating
immigrant families in America. New York, NY: Falmer.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York,
NY: New Press.
121
Denbo, S., Lynson, C., & Beaulieu, L. (2002). Improving schools for African American
students: A reader for educational leaders. Champaign, IL: Thomas.
Denig, S. J. (2007). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two complimentary
dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 96-111.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Diamond, M. C. (1996). The brain….use it or lose it. Mindshift Connection, 1, 1.
Dickson, K. (2003). Gifted education and African American learners. An equity
perspective. In J. A. Castellano (Ed.), Special populations in gifted education:
Working with diverse gifted learners (pp. 45-63). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dirkes, A. (1985). Techniques of creative thinking. American Psychologist, 33, 815-820.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Draschen, S. (1982). Principals and practice in second language. New York, NY:
Pergamon Press.
Duke, D. L. (2003). The challenge of educational change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Durodoye, B., & Hildreth, B. (1997). Learning styles and the African American student.
Education, 116(2), 241-247.
Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in identifying gifted/talented students.
Multicultural Education, 15(3), 35-38.
Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). Effect of children’s
ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and
talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25-31.
122
Embretson, S. E., & Schmidt MCollam, K. (2009). Psychometric approaches to
understanding and measuring intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
intelligence (pp. 423-444). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ericcson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Exum, H. A., & Colangelo, N. (1981). Culturally diverse gifted: The need for ethnic
identity development. Roeper Review, 3, 15-17.
Fagan, E. R. (1979). Brain hemispheres: Panacea 2001? Clearing House, 52, 407-410.
Fagan, J. F., & Holland, C. R. (2002). Equal opportunity and racial differences in IQ.
Intelligence, 30, 361-387.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson
(Eds.), Conceptions of gifted (pp. 112-127). New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
Feuerstein, R. (1982). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore, MD: University Press.
Floyd, R., Keith, T., Taub, G., & McGrew, K. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive
abilities and their effects on reading decoding skills: g has indirect effects, more
specific abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 200-
233.
Ford, D. Y. (1995). A study of underachievement among gifted, potentially gifted, and
and general education students. Storrs-Mansfield, CT: University of Connecticut,
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising
practices and programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
123
Ford, D.Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education:
Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special
Education, 32, 4-14.
Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of
diverse students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283-291.
Ford, D. Y. (2005). Ten suggestions for increasing diversity in gifted education. Gifted
Education Press Quarterly, 19(4), 2-4.
Ford, D. Y. (2006a). Closing the achievement gap: How gifted education can help. Gifted
Child Today, 29(4), 14-18.
Ford, D. Y. (2006b). Identification of young culturally diverse students for gifted
education programs. Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 20(1), 2-4.
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted
education. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted
students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically
diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues.
Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
124
Ford, D., Harris, J., Tyson, C., & Frazier-Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking:
Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52-
58.
Ford, D., Moore, J. L., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Beyond cultural blindness: A model of
culture with implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 27, 97-103.
Ford, D., Moore, J., Whiting, G., & Grantham, T. (2008). African American
experiences—conducting cross-cultural research: Controversy, cautions,
concerns, and considerations. Roeper Review, 30, 82-92.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden
of acting White. The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Franklin, V. P. (1991). Black social scientists and the mental testing movement, 1920-
1940. In R. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (pp. 207-229). Berkeley, CA: Cobb &
Henry.
Frasier, M. M. (1991). Response to Kitano: The sharing of giftedness between culturally
diverse and non-diverse students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1),
20-30.
Frasier, M. M. (1993). Eliminating the four persisting barriers to identifying gifted
minority students. In D. Sisk (Ed.), Gifted international (Vol. 7, pp. 60-65). New
York, NY: Trillium Press.
Frasier, M., Garcia, J., & Passow, A. (1995a). A review of assessment issues in gifted
education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students.
Retrieved from http:www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports
125
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H., & Martin,
D. (1995b). Educators’ perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted
children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient
backgrounds. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED402707)
Friskhoff, G. (2007). Hemispheric differences in strong versus weak semantic priming:
Evidence from event related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 23-43.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gagne, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.
High Ability Studies, 15(2), 120-147.
Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public
society (RM02162). Storrs-Mansfield, CT: University of Connecticut, The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Gardner, H. (1983, 2011). Frames of mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2000, March 12). Intelligence refrained: Multiple intelligences for the 21st
century. Opening address at Teaching for Intelligence Conference, Orlando, FL.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gollnick, D. M., & P. C. Chinn. (2009). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
126
Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. Annual Review. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 1-14.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice. Nature
Review Neuroscience. AOP, published online at www.nature.com/reviews/neuro
Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Realities in desegregating gifted education. In D. Boothe & J.
C. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in
gifted education (pp. 139-155). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Grantham, T. C. (2004). Rocky Jones: Case study of a high achieving Black male’s
motivation to participate in gifted classes. Roeper Review, 26, 208-215.
Grantham, T. C., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Beyond self-concept and self-esteem for African
American students: Improving racial identity improves achievement. The High
School Journal, 87(1), 18-29.
Griggs, L., Barney, S., Brown-Sederberg, J., Collins, E., Keith, S., & Iannacci, L. (2009).
Varying pedagogy to address student multiple intelligences. Human Architecture,
7(1), 55-60. Retrieved from http://search:proquest.com/docview/2101724
Hale, J. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for African
American children. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Haley, M. H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences
with second language learners. Teachers College Record, 6(1), 141-154.
Harmon, D. (2002). They won’t teach me: The voices of gifted African American
inner-city students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 68-75.
127
Haycock, K. (2002, Winter). State policy levers: Closing the achievement gap. National
Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved from
www.nasbe.org/Standard/8_Winter2002/haycock.pdf
Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in cognitive ability
testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure
in American life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hilliard, A. G., III. (1989, January). Teachers and cultural styles in a pluralistic society.
NEA Today, 65-69.
Hilliard, A. G., III. (1992). Why we must pluralize the curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 49(4), 12-16.
Hilliard, A. G., III. (1995). Culture, assessment, and valid teaching for the African
American student. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M. Patton, (Eds), Effective
education of African American exceptional learners: New perspectives (pp. ix-
xvi). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hunsaker, S. L., Finley, V. S., & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations
and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19-24.
Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. (2006). Classroom contextual
effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77,
1325-1337.
128
Jackson, Y. (2001). Reversing underachievement in urban students: Pedagogy of
confidence. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking (pp. 222-228). Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and
Johnston, C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). The achievement gap in mathematics: A
significant problem for African American students [online]. National Journal
for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 4(1). Retrieved from
hppt://nationalforum.com/Journals/OJPMDSR.htm
Jones, R. W. (2005). Equally capable, equally smart: A candid look at race, gender and
intelligence in our society. Riverside, CA: Forum Universal Books.
Joughin, G. (1992). Cognitive style and adult learning principles. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 11(1), 3-14.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2000). Models of teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Katz, L. (1987). The experience of personal change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Graduate College, The Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH.
Keefe, J. W., & Monks, J. (1989). Assessing student learning styles. In J. W. Keefe
(Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior (pp. 1-18). Retrieved from
www.acdowddesigns.com/sfsu_860_11/LS_OverView.pdf
Keith, T. A., & Reynolds, M. R. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll, abilities and cognitive
tests: What we’ve learned from 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools,
47, 635-650.
Kitano, M. K. (1991). A multicultural perspective on serving the culturally diverse gifted.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1), 4-19.
129
Kitano, M. K., & Di Jiosia, M. (2002). Are Asian and Pacific Americans overrepresented
in programs for the gifted? Roeper Review, 24(2), 76-80.
Kornhaber, M. L. (2004). Using multiple intelligences to overcome cultural barriers
to identification for gifted education. In D. Booth & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), In the
eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 215-
225). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kornhaber, M., & Krechevsky, M. (1995). Expanding definitions of learning and
teaching: Notes from the MI underground. In P. Cookson & B. Schneider (Eds.),
Transforming schools (pp. 181-208). New York, NY: Garland.
Kunjufu, J. (1989). To be popular or smart: The Black peer group. Chicago, IL: African
American Images.
Kunjufu, J. (2002). Black students-middle class teachers. Chicago, IL: African American
Images.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A
culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31,
312-320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching: The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159-165.
Landsman, J., & Lewis, C. W. (Eds.). (2006). White teachers, diverse classrooms:
Guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations and
eliminating racism. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Levin, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Levin, M. (2003). The myth of laziness. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
130
Levine, A. (2005). Why should I worry about schools my children won’t attend?(2004
Annual Report). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Lewis, J., DeCamp-Fritson, S., Ramage, J., MacFarland, M., & Archwamety, T. (2007).
Selecting for ethnically diverse children who may be gifted using the Raven’s
Standard Progressive Matrices and Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test.
Multicultural Education, 15(1), 38-42.
Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave: Critical Race Theory, racial stereotyping,
and the teaching of American history. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1),
27-32.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (1998). Nursing research: Methods, critical appraisal,
and utilization (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Lombardi, J. (2008). Beyond learning styles: Brain-based research and English language
learners. Clearing House, 81, 5.
Louis, B., Subotnik, R., Smith-Breland, P., & Lewis, M. (2000). Establishing criteria for
high ability versus selective admission to gifted programs: Implications for policy
and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 295-314.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem,
needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
Margison, J. A. (2006). Recent dissertation research in gifted studies. Roeper Review,
28(2), 111-121.
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of
the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing House.
131
Matthews, M. S. (2004). Leadership education for gifted and talented youth: A review
of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 77-113.
Mbuva, J. (2003). Implementation of the Multiple Intelligences Theory in the 21st century
teaching and learning environment: A new tool for effective teaching and
learning in all levels. LaJolla, CA: Education Resource Information Center.
(ED # 476102)
McBee, M. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification
screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 17(2), 103-111.
McFarlane, D. (2011). Multiple intelligences: The most effective platform for global 21st
century educational and instructional methodologies. College Quarterly, 14(2), 1-
7.
Meacham, S. J. (2001). Vygotsky and the blues: Re-reading cultural connections and
conceptual development. Theory into Practice, 40(3), 190-197.
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from
underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good
idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.
Miller, E. M. (2005). Studying the meaning of giftedness: Inspiration from the field of
cognitive psychology. Roeper Review, 27(3), 172-178.
132
Milner, H. R. (2003). A case study of an African American English teacher’s cultural
comprehensive knowledge and (self) reflective planning. Journal of Curriculum
and Supervision, 18, 175-196.
Milner, R., & Ford, D. (2007). Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of
culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29(3),
166-173.
Moffett, J. E. (2005). A transcendental phenomenological study of banking executives’
ethical perceptions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses database.
Monks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 187-200). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a
mentoring program: Impacts on achievement and gifted identification in high risk
primary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 305-321.
Morgan, H. (2010). Improving schooling for cultural minorities: The right teaching styles
can make a big difference. Educational Horizons. Retrieved from
http:// www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/.../learningstyles.pdf
Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education: The politics of
race and culture. Roeper Review, 24(2), 59-62.
Mrazik, M., & Dombrowski, S. (2009). Neurobiology, prenatal development, and
prodigiousness: The neurobiological foundations of giftedness. Roeper
Review, 32, 224-234.
133
Murrell, P. C. (2002). African-centered pedagogy: Developing schools of achievement
for African American children. New York, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority
children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Roeper Review, 47,
155-160.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in
gifted classes using NNAT: A response to Lohman. The Gifted Child Quarterly,
49(1), 29-37.
Naglieri, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness and
creativity using the PASS theory [Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and
Successive theory]. Roeper Review, 23(3), 151-156.
National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs
for the Gifted. (2004). State of the states 2004-2005. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). What is gifted? Retrieved from
http://nagc.org
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Factsheet. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neal, L. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. T. (2003). The effects
of African American movement styles on teachers’ perceptions and reactions.
The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49-57.
134
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences:
A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1),
193-211.
Oakland, T., & Rossen, E. (2005). A 21st century model for identifying students for gifted
and talented programs in light of national conditions: An emphasis on race and
ethnicity. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 56-63.
O’Connell, P. (2003). Federal involvement in gifted and talented education. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 604-
608). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ogbu, J. U. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 13, 290-307.
Parsons, E. C., Travis, C., & Simpson, J. (2005). The Black cultural ethos, students’
instructional context preferences, and student achievement: An examination of
culturally congruent science instruction in the eighth grade classes of one African
American and one Euro-American teacher. Negro Educational Review, 56, 183-
204.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent
potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3),
198-202.
135
Patton, M. L. (2007). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials
(6th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pewewardy, C. (2008). Learning styles of American Indian/Alaska Native students. In J.
Noel (Ed.), Classic edition sources: Multicultural education (pp. 116-121). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What
the experts say. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 161-169.
Pierce, R. L., Adams, C. M., Spiers Neumeister, K. L., Cassidy, J. C., Dixon, F. A., &
Cross, T. L. (2007). Development of an identification procedure for a large
urban school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted
elementary students. Roeper Review, 29, 113-118.
Plucker, J. A. (2001). Looking back, looking around, looking forward: The impact
of intelligence theories on gifted education. Roeper Review, 23(3), 124-125.
Posthuma, D., DeGeus, E. J. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (2001). Perceptual speed and IQ are
associated through common genetic factors. Behavioral Genetics, 21, 593-602.
Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric
nominations with middle school youth. Sociometric Assessment, 17, 908-921.
Ramirez, M., III. (1989). Pluralistic education: A bio-cognitive-multicultural model. The
Clearinghouse Bulletin, 3, 4-5.
136
Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences
perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education
(pp. 54-66). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Reinemann, D., & Ellison, P. (2004). The applicability of cognitive meditational and
moderational models to explain children’s depression inventory factors scores
in urban youth. School Psychology Quarterly, 19(3), 231-252.
Reis, S. M., & Small, M. A. (2005). The varied and unique characteristics exhibited by
diverse gifted and talented learners. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.),
Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 3-35). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1990). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students.
Early Child Development and Care, 63, 9-18.
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of
social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (3rd ed., pp. 75-87). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three ring-conceptions of giftedness: A developmental model
for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide
for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
137
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing
creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 184-203). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Restak, R. (1979). The brain: The last frontier. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Rizza, M. G., & Morrison, W. F. (2002). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying
characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral
disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73-78.
Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examiner.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 117-139.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of cognitive development. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Romanoff, B. S., Algozzine, B., & Nielson, A. (2009). Achievement of African American
and Caucasian students referred and placed or not placed in gifted programs.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(2), 156-175.
Rovai, A. P., Gallien, L. B., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Cultural and interpersonal factors
affecting African American academic performance in higher education: A review
and synthesis of the research literature. The Journal of Negro Education, 74,
359-370.
Rowley, S., & Moore, J. (2002). When who I am impacts how I am represented:
Addressing minority student issues in different contexts. Roeper Review, 24, 63-
67.
138
Rushton, S., & Larkin, E. (2001). Shaping the learning environment: Connecting
developmentally appropriate practice to brain research. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 29(1).
Sarouphim, K. M. (2001). DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and
identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 130-138.
Sattler, J. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA:
Author.
Scheibel, A. B. (1996). Structural and functional change in the aging brain. In J. E. Birren
& K. W. Schaie, (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 105-128). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
School Redesign Network at Stanford University and Justice Matters. (2007). High
schools for equity. Retrieved from http://srnleads.org
Schroth, S., & Helfer, J. (2008). Identifying gifted students: Educator beliefs regarding
various policies, processes, and procedures. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 32(2), 155-179.
Schroth, S., & Helfer, J. (2009). Practitioners’ conceptions of academic talent and
giftedness: Essential factors in deciding classroom and school composition.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 384-403.
Shade, B. J. (1989). Culture, style, and the educative process. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
139
Shade, B. (1992). Is there an Afro-American cognitive style? An exploratory study. In A.
K. Burlew, W. Banks, H. McAdoo, & D. Azibo (Eds.), African-American
psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 256-259). Newbury Park, CT:
Sage Publications.
Shade, B. J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sheets, R. H. (1996). Urban classroom conflict: Student-teacher perception: Ethic
integrity, solidarity, and resistance. Urban Review, 28, 165-184.
Sheets, R. H. (2009). What is diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the
teaching and learning process. Multicultural Learning, 16(3), 11-13.
Siegle, D., Moore, M., Mann, R., & Wilson, H. (2010). Factors that influence in-service
and pre-service teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented
programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337-360.
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students
for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29.
Simons, P. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following
successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203-1231.
Smith-Stevens, S. (2009). Profiles of dominance in physical education. Kinesiology,
41(1), 40-51.
Spagna, M. (2006, February 27). An overview of Dr. Levine’s work. [Monograph].
Presentation at Focus on the Family Conference, California State University,
Northridge, CA.
140
Speirs, K., Neumeister, C., Adams, R. L., Pierce, J., Cassady, C., & Dixon, F. (2007).
Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and
serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-
499.
Staiger, A. (2004). Whiteness as giftedness: Racial formation at an urban high school.
Social Problems, 51(2), 161-182.
Stephens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented
revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219-238.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Cognitive approaches to intelligence. In B. B. Woolman (Ed.),
Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and application (pp. 59-118).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of intelligence. New York, NY:
Viking Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence.
In C. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.,
pp. 88-99). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325-328.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29(3), 160-165.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
141
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as
great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davison (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343-357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sue, D. W. (2004). Whiteness and ethnocentric monoculturalism: Making the “invisible”
visible. American Psychologist, 59, 761-769.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice
(4th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income minority
gifted students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11-27.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tannenbaum, A. (1990). Defensible? Venerable? Vulnerable? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 34, 84-86.
Tatum, B. V. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?
and other conversations about race. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Temple, E. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral
remediation: Evidence by FMRI. Proc. National Academy of Science, 100, 2860-
2865.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a
thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
142
Thompson, P., Cannon, T. D., & Toga, A. W. (2002). Mapping genetic influences on
human brain structures. A review. Annals of Medicine, 34, 523-536.
Tileston, D., & Darling, S. (2008). Why culture counts: Teaching children of poverty.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Tomes, Y. I. (2008). Ethnicity, cognitive styles, and math achievement: Variability within
African-American post-secondary students. Multicultural Perspectives, 10(1), 17-
23.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom:
Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., & Lelli, K. M. (1997). Challenging expectations:
Case studies of high potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 41(2), 5-17.
Tyler, K., Uqhad, A., Dillihunt, M., Beatty-Hazelbaker, R., Conner, T., Gadison, N.,…
Stevens, R. (2008). Cultural discontinuity: Toward a quantitative investigation in
education. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 280-297.
Tyson, K., Darity, W., & Casttellino, D. R. (2005). It’s not a “Black thing”:
Understanding the burden of acting White and other dilemmas of high
achievement. American Sociological Review, 70, 582-605.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for
developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
143
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Quek, C., & Struck, J. (2004). A study of educators’
and students’ perceptions of academic success for underrepresented populations
identified for gifted programs. Psychology Science, 46, 363-378.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Patton, J., & Prillman, D. (1989). Disadvantaged gifted learners
at-risk for educational attention. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22, 1-16.
Venogopal, K., & Mridula, K. (2007). Styles of learning and thinking. Journal of Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(1), 111-118.
Veronneau, M. H., & Vitaro, F. (2007). Social experience with peers and high school
graduation: A review of theoretical and empirical research. Educational
Psychology, 27, 419-445.
Viens, J., Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (1997). Theories of intelligence and critiques. In J.
Paul, M. Churton, H. Rosselli-Kostorys, W. Morse, K. Marfo, C. Lavely, & D.
Thomas (Eds.), Foundations of special education: Basic knowledge information
research and practice in special education (pp. 122-156). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Oxford, UK: Harvard University Press.
Wasserman, L. (2007). The correlation between brain developments, language
acquisition and cognition. Early Childhood Development, 34, 415-418.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
144
Wheeler, T. R. (2007). Making the connection: An investigation of the literacy
instructional practices of two culturally responsive African American primary
teachers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY.
Williams, B. (2006). Lessons along the cultural spectrum. National Staff Development
Council, 27(4), 43-46.
Willis, M. G. (1989). Learning styles of African American children: A review of the
literature and interventions. The Journal of Black Psychology, 16(1), 47-65.
Wolf, J., & Brandt, R. (1998). What we know from brain research. Education
Leadership, 55(3), 8-14.
Wolfe, P., & Nevills, P. (2008). What happens in the brain when children read. In K. I.
Fischer & M. Immordino-Yang (Eds.), The brain and learning (pp. 251-272).
Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational Psychology (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Yoon, S., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs:
Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136.
Zambo, D., & Zambo, R. (2011). Teacher beliefs about neuroscience and education.
Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(2), 25-40.
145
APPENDIX A
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING
146
Essential Elements for Culturally Responsive Teaching (Cole, 2007)
1. Teachers have a clear sense of their own ethnic and cultural identities. This
means that teachers must engage in critical self-examination and explore
their own attitudes and perceptions concerning cultural diversity. Teachers
must actively acquire accurate information about African Americans, and
various cultural groups and seek opportunities for personal and professional
opportunities to gain greater understanding of aspects of cultural and ethnic
diversity and the role of culture in the learning process.
2. Teachers communicate high expectations for student success and a belief

that all students can learn. This means clearly stating expectations for students
to be successful. Encourage divergent thinking, and provide rigorous
curriculum and support to ensure opportunities for success.
3. Teachers are personally committed to achieving equity and believe they are
capable of making a difference to assure success for all students.
4. Teachers develop a bond with each student by making an effort to know each
student.
5. Schools provide an academically challenging curriculum that includes

developing higher-level cognitive skills. Teachers provide scaffolding to
support student success, when background knowledge is limited and seek
alternate pathways for demonstrating cognitive skills.
6. Teachers provide instruction that focuses on students creating their own

meaning about content, and provide a collaborative and interactive learning
environment by providing opportunities for students’ personal cultural
strengths.
7. Teachers help students see learning tasks as meaningful (relevant), and

connect learning to students’ lives. They capitalize on students’ cultures,
language, and experiences. They work to connect learning to students’ lives
and use instructional approaches for field-dependent learners.
8. Curricula includes contributions and perspectives of different ethnicities and

cultural groups, and teach from an authentic multicultural perspective; which
is deeper than celebrating food and holidays. Learning environments reflect
aspects of students’ culture. Teacher provides opportunity for extended
learning, with rich literature and supporting materials.
9. Teachers provide scaffolding that links the curriculum to the cultural

resources that students bring to school. Use AVBB (Affirm, Value, Build
and Bridge) to provide cultural support to assist students in making
connections to the standards and the curriculum.
147
Teachers use realia and resources to build background knowledge
10. Teachers explicitly teach the culture of school, while maintaining the
student’s sense of cultural pride and identity, and provide direct and explicit
instruction as needed. Utilize vocabulary strategies such as Contrastive
Analysis so that students understand the difference between home language
(African American Vernacular English-AAVE) and Mainstream Academic
English-MAE). Affirm the value in diversity; avoid a mono-cultural
approach to schooling.
11. Teachers and the school encourages community, and family involvement, and
ensure that they are given a voice in making decisions involving school
programs.
12. Teachers are involved in socio-political activities which support a pluralistic

approach to education, and achieving a more just and humane society.
Culturally responsive teachers remain actively involved in issues supporting
equity and access, and seek opportunities to work with colleagues to ensure
equity and access for all students. They participate in courageous
conversations about culture, race or ethnicity, seeking opportunities to
eliminate biases and discrimination whenever and wherever it is encountered
( p. 45-46).
148
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT AND INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY
149
Dear Participant: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study.
Voluntary Status: You are being invited to participate in a research study conducted by the
researcher from Azusa Pacific University. You are being asked to volunteer since you meet the
requirements for enrollment into this study. Your participation is voluntary which means you can
choose whether or not you want to participate. You may withdraw any time without penalty. If
you decline to continue, any data gathered to that point may be used in data analysis. If you
choose not to participate, there will be no loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Before you
make your decision, you will need to know what the study is about, the possible risks and benefits
of being in this study, and what you will have to do in this study. As the researcher, I m going to
discuss this study with you, and then I will give you this consent form to read. You may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you find some of the language difficult to
understand, please ask me for clarification about this form. If you decide to participate, you will
be asked to sign this form.
Purpose: The study for which you are being asked to participate is designed to better understand
teacher perception s of giftedness. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of the
multiple intelligence approach of instruction on teacher attitudes, perceptions and beliefs on
giftedness and the referral of African American students to Gifted and Talented Education
Programs.
Procedure: To be a voluntary participant in this study, you will be asked to complete a short 11
item survey, which will take approximately 20 minutes to compete. Upon meeting additional
criteria, you may be asked to participate in a brief interview.
Commitment and Compensation: Depending on your level of participation in this study, your
total participation will take between 25-60 minutes or 1 or 2 sessions. Each session will last
approximately 25-60 minutes.
You will not receive financial compensation for participation in this study.
Possible Risks & Benefits: It is expected that participation in this study will provide you with
no more that minimal risk or discomfort which means that you should not experience it as any
more troubling that your normal daily life. However, there is always the chance that there are
some unexpected risks. The foreseeable risks in this study include an accidental disclosure of
your private information, or discomfort by answering questions that are embarrassing. If you feel
uncomfortable, or distressed, please inform me and I will ask you if you want to continue. You
can withdraw from this study at any time without penalty. You will not receive any direct
benefits from participating in this study; however, your participation in this study will help
improve the knowledge about Multiple Intelligences and teacher perceptions of giftedness in
African American students.
Your participation may also benefit other people with similar concerns.
Confidentiality and Consent: The investigator involved with the study will keep your personal
information collected for this study strictly confidential. Any information that is obtained in
connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be
disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. Your identity will be kept strictly
confidential by utilizing pseudonyms and coding techniques. Research study notes, interview
transcripts and audio files will be kept in a locked storage facility for 3 years, as required by
150
Azusa Pacific University. Access to research data will be granted only to the researcher and
authorized University personnel.
All collected research data will be kept in a stored and locked cabinet. Electronic data will be
scored on a computer and accessed by only the researcher’s password.
This document explains your rights as a research subject. If you have questions regarding your
participation in this research study or have questions about your rights as a research subject,
please contact the Principal Investigator using the information at the bottom of this form.
Concerning your rights or treatment as a research subject, you may contact the Research Integrity
Officer at Azusa Pacific University (APU) at (626) 815-2036.
New Information: During the course of this study, we may discover information that could be
important to you. This includes information that, once learned, might cause you to change your
mind about being in the study. We will notify you as soon as possible if such information
becomes available.
Conflict of Interest: The Principal Investigator has complied with the Azusa Pacific University
Conflict of Interest policy.
Consent: I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I may
refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I understand the
procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a research
study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree
to participate in this study. I have received a copy of this consent form.
_______ I agree to be audio taped ______I do not agree to be audio taped
_______________________ ___________________________ __________________

Participant Name Printed Participant Name Signed Date
I have explained the research to the subject and his/her legal representative and answered all of
his/her questions. I believe he/she understands the information described in this document and
free consents to participate.
_________________________________________ ____________________________
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
Tanya Amerson Fisher

5324 Fox Hunt Place
Fontana, CA 92336 Email: tahoon@aol.com
151
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT AND INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
IN INTERVIEW
152
Informed Consent to Participate in the Interview
My name is Tanya Fisher and I am a Doctoral student at Azusa Pacific
University. I am conducting a research study entitled, “The Impact of Multiple
Intelligences on Teacher Perception of Giftedness and the Referral of African American
Students to Gifted and Talented Programs.” The purpose of this study is to determine the
impact of the multiple intelligence approach of instruction on teacher attitudes,
perceptions and beliefs on giftedness and the referral of African American students to
Gifted and Talented Education Programs. This mixed method study combines
quantitative and qualitative research approaches into a single study. Data sources for this
study includes an 8 item survey, followed up with a semi- structured interview involving
a purposive sample teachers of Gifted and Talented Students, and a review of district
archival data.
Your participation in the interview process will involve a 45-60 minute audio
taped interview with the researcher. The audiotapes will be destroyed upon transcription
of the recordings. The interview questions are aligned with the survey, and designed to
provide for more detailed responses in order to acquire a more in-depth picture of teacher
attitude perceptions and beliefs on giftedness and the referral of African American
students to Gifted and Talented Programs.
Your participation in the study is voluntary. If you choose to participate or to
withdraw from the study at any time, you may do so without penalty or loss of benefit to
yourself. The results of the research study may be published, however, your name will
not be used and your results will be maintained in strict confidence.
There will be no direct monetary benefits or incentive provided for your

participation in this research. However, your participation will contribute to educational
153
research which will provide further information relative to multiple intelligences and
giftedness in African American students. Should you have any questions regarding this
study, you may contact my dissertation supervisor, Professor Jenny Yau at
(626) 815-5373.
Consent: I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I
may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I
understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this study. I have received a
copy of this consent form.
 I agree to be audio taped  I do not agree to be audio

taped
_____________________________ _______________________________________
Participant Name Printed Participant Name Signed
Date
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative and answered
all of his/her questions. I believe he/she understands the information described in this
document and freely consents to participate.
_________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Principal Investigator Date
154
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE
155
TEACHER BELIEFS REGARDING
GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS

Directions: Please complete the survey reflecting on your knowledge and beliefs related to the
methods for identifying and serving gifted students. For those areas in which you have no knowledge
of such programs, please indicate this as your response or leave blank.
1. Which grade level do you teach?

a. Kindergarten
b. First grade
c. Second grade
d. Third grade
e. Fourth grade
f. Fifth grade
g. Sixth grade
h. Other ______________.
2. What is your ethnicity?

a. African American/Black
b. Asian
c. Caucasian/White
d. Hispanic/Latino
e. Native American/Indian
f. Other ______________.
3. Counting this year, how many years have you been a teacher?
a. 1 year or less
b. 2-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11 or more years
4. Do you currently hold a GATE Certificate? _____Yes _____No
5. Have you participated in any GATE trainings? ____ Yes _____No
6. Have you received training on the Multiple Intelligence Theory? _____Yes ____ No
7. Place an “X” in the box that indicates how strongly you agree with each of the following:
SD: Strongly Disagree, D: Disagree, A: Agree, SA: Strongly Agree
SD D A SA
I know the District criteria for nominating or referring
A
students for identification and placement in Gifted programs.
The District provides adequate training to teachers about the
B
referral process.
I am very aware of the District’s Alternative Identification
C
Criteria for Gifted and Talented Programs.
Teacher referrals of students to Gifted programs should be
D
considered as strongly as standardized tests.
All teachers should be trained in the Multiple Intelligence
E.
Theory of instruction
156
8. Place an “X” in the box that indicates how strongly you agree with each item as criteria for
demonstration of giftedness as described below:
SD D A SA
th
A Standardized test scores at the 98 percentile or above.
Specific academic aptitude (doing very well in one or more
B
core subjects such as reading, math, science, or social studies)
C Creative or productive thinking.
D Leadership ability or potential.
E Ability or potential in the visual arts.
F Ability or potential in music.
G Ability or potential in dance.
H Ability or potential in theatre/drama
A combination of above-average ability, creativity (i.e., many
I unique and original ideas), and task commitment (i.e., goal-
setting and perseverance to complete independent project).
High ability at tasks requiring analytical (i.e., ability to dissect
J
a problem and understand its parts) thinking.
High level of ability at tasks requiring creative (i.e., insightful,
K
intuitive, or adept at coping with novel situations) thinking.
High level of ability at tasks requiring practical (i.e., applying
L
analytic or creative abilities to everyday problems) thinking
M High capabilities in Gardner’s verbal/linguistic intelligence.
N High capabilities in Gardner’s bodily/kinesthetic intelligence.
O High capabilities in Gardner’s musical intelligence.
High capabilities in Gardner’s logical/mathematic
P
intelligence.
Q High capabilities in Gardner’s spatial intelligence.
R High capabilities in Gardner’s interpersonal intelligence.
S High capabilities in Gardner’s intrapersonal intelligence.
9. How effective are the following methods of identifying students for referral to Gifted Programs?
Place an “X” in the box under the column that represents your opinion.
VI: Very Ineffective, I: Ineffective, E: Effective, VE: Very Effective
VI I E VE
A Standardized tests.
B Teacher nominations.
C Parent nominations.
D Peer nominations.
E Portfolios of student work.
F Performance assessments by experts.
G Observations.
157
10. Indicate how important you believe it to be that gifted education programs serve the following
groups by placing an “X” under the column that represents your opinion.
VI: Very Ineffective, I: Ineffective, E: Effective, VE: Very Effective
VI I E VE
Students whose academic performance is at an advanced level
A compared to age peers.
Students who do not make good grades in the regular
B
classroom.
C Students who are well-behaved.
D Students who complete assigned tasks such as homework.
E Students enrolled below the third grade.
F Students who learn material rapidly.
G Students who understand complex and abstract concepts.
H Students who demonstrate talent in the visual arts.
I Students who demonstrate talent in music.
J Students with a high degree of motivation.
Students who use advanced thinking, processing, and
K
problem-solving skills.
Students who demonstrate intense interest in certain areas of
L
study or academic work.
M Students who possess a well-developed memory.
11. Place an “X” in the box that indicates how strongly you agree with each of the following:
SD D A SA
Differences in language experiences hinder the development
A
of giftedness in African American students.
Parents often do not provide stimulating home environments,
B thus African American students often enter school at a
disadvantage and are unlikely to catch up.
Culture can impact how students learn and engage in the
C
schooling process.
To identify giftedness in a fair and accurate way, traditional
D
assessments such as IQ tests must be used.
E Culture can impact how giftedness is perceived.
Nonstandard English and African American Vernacular
F English prevents students from performing well enough in
school to be nominated for Gifted Programs.
Using placement criteria for gifted students other than
G standardized tests, will water down the quality of Gifted
Programs.
H Gifted students are easy to identify in the classroom
158
Thank you for completing this survey. Please place your survey in the attached
envelope, seal it, and return it to the office. Your survey results will remain
completely anonymous. Thank you for your time.
159
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
160
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
MI, Teacher Perception of Giftedness and Teacher Referral of AA Students to Gifted and
Talented Programs
1. What do you enjoy most about teaching?
2. As the demographics of our community continues to become more diverse, how has
this impacted on your instruction of gifted or potentially gifted students?
3. Please share with me your perspective on Intelligence.
4. How do you define Giftedness?
5. Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences identifies several ways in which

individuals perceive and understand the world.
161
5A. What is your perspective on this Theory of Intelligence?
5B. How do you think teachers address students’ strengths in these areas?
6. Current data and research indicates that minority students, particularly African
American students are under-identified and underrepresented in Gifted and Talented
Programs. Share your thoughts as to what you think may be contributing factors to
this issue.
7. What does the referral process involve in your school District?
7A. How about the process at your school?
7B. What if any is the role of teacher nominations in the referral process?
8. What is the GATE identification process in your District?
9. What may be traits that you believe gifted students demonstrate?
9B. What makes you think so?
162
10. In the book, Black Children: Their roots, Culture, and Learning Style, Janice
Hale-Benson(1986) indicates that formal education has not worked for many
African American students because it has not employed teaching styles that
correspond with students’ learning styles. Would you comment on this statement
and share your thoughts on culture and learning style?
11. What are your thoughts on the “development of giftedness” and talent potential?
12. Considering that African American students are underrepresented in Gifted and
Talented Programs how do you think your school works to develop talent potential
in African American students?
163
Multiple Intelligences Addendum
Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences identifies several

ways in which individuals perceive and understand the world. Gardner suggests that
intelligence is the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are valuable in
one or more cultural settings, and can be learned and improved throughout life. His
Theory of Multiple Intelligence challenges the traditional view of intelligence as a
single construct as measured by IQ tests. Gardner’s intelligences highlight strengths
in the following areas:
Interpersonal – strength in the ability to interact well with others,
interpreting behavior and feelings through verbal and non
verbal communication.
Intrapersonal – self-smart; strength in one’s own personal motivation

ethics, integrity, and understanding their own innermost
feelings.
Bodily/Kinesthetic- strength in using the body for self expression (good at

making things with their hands, dancer, athletes,
choreographers, actors, etc.)
Logical/Mathematical - strength in the use of numbers, sequencing and

patterns to solve problems.
Musical- strength in the ability to recognize and compose musical

pitches, tones, rhythms, sounds.
Visual/Spatial – strength in the ability to visualize objects and spatial

dimensions, and create internal images and pictures.
Linguistic- strength in the use of language and words (oral and written
expression).
Naturalist – strength in the ability to discriminate among living things

(plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to features of the
natural world.
Existentialist - can be defined as the ability to be sensitive to, or have the

capacity for, conceptualizing or tackling deeper, spiritual
questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life.
164
APPENDIX F
MATRIX FOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
165
MATRIX FOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Research Concept Interview

Question Question
1, 2 Participant Background Data 1
1, 4 Knowledge, Perception, Attitudes and Beliefs on Multiple 3, 5, 11
Intelligence Theory
1, 4 Knowledge, Perception, Attitudes and Beliefs on 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,
Giftedness 12
1, 2, 3 Knowledge of District Referral Criteria 7, 8,
1, 3, 5 Use of District Referral Criteria 7, 8.
1, 4, 5 Cultural Factors and Perceptions of Giftedness 2, 6, 9, 10,
11, 12
166

Fisher 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Fisher 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fisher 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY

THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORY ON TEACHER

A dissertation submitted to the

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Doctor of Education

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORY ON TEACHER

has been approved by the

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Doctor of Education

Jenny Y.P. Yau, Ed.D., Committee Chair

Hae-Seong Park, Ph.D., Committee Member

Pamela M. Christian, Ph.D., Committee Member

Anita Fitzgerald Henck, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

All Rights Reserved

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Robert and Elizabeth Amerson, who

that they made to be the wind beneath my wings.

cooperation, participation, and support of this research project.

THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE THEORY ON TEACHER

merely cognitive or academic performance. Teacher referrals are usually an important

component of identifying gifted students. Teacher perceptions, low expectations, and

teachers’ knowledge of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983, 2006,

2011) on their perception of giftedness in the referral of African American students to

differences in teacher attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs on giftedness in teachers having

factors impact teacher perceptions of giftedness in African American students, in teachers

methods approach, a quasi-experimental design and qualitative inquiry were utilized.

criteria. However, teachers having MI Theory training demonstrated greater knowledge

of the district’s Alternative Referral and Identification Criteria. Conceptual differences

to students’ use of non-standard English in the perception of giftedness. Greater focus on

leadership is needed in the current federal definition of giftedness. Overall, findings

understanding of the multifaceted attributes of intelligence, which may result in greater

opportunities to identify non-traditional areas of giftedness in African American students.

Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii

Figure 1: Demographics of School District 2011-2012 .....................................................74

Background of the Problem .....................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................5

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6

Research Questions ..................................................................................................7

Significance of the Study .........................................................................................7

Definition of Key Terms ..........................................................................................8

2. Review of the Literature ...............................................................................................10

Documentation of the Literature Search ................................................................10

Theories of Intelligence .........................................................................................11

Historical Perspectives and Assessment of Intelligence ............................12

Contemporary Theories of Intelligence .....................................................13

Neuroscience and Evidence of the Learning Process ............................................17

Cognitive Neuroscience .............................................................................17

Brain Structures and Functions ..................................................................18

Contemporary Research on Hemispheric Laterization, Preference, and

Hemispheric Dominance and Preference ...................................................19

The Brain and Learning .............................................................................20

Neuroscience and Education ..................................................................................21

Culture and African American Students’ Learning ...............................................23

Culture and Learning .................................................................................24

Culture and Cognitive Style .......................................................................25

African American Learners’ Learning Styles ............................................27

Cultural Discontinuity: Home and School Connections ............................29