Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Dr. William F. Morrison
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, USA
fmorris@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Dr. Mary G. Rizza
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, USA
mrizza@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Dr. Eric Jones
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, USA
ejones@bgnet.bgsu.edu
The current study sought to identify the overlapping characteristics and behaviors of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities and then investigate teacher attitudes toward these two groups of students. Pre-service and in-service teachers were surveyed. Participants were asked to read items and decide to what extent the item described a gifted student and to what extent the item described a student with an emotional/behavioral disability. Findings point to difference in overall perceptions in the pre-service and in-service teachers, the effects classroom experience may have on perception of characteristics, and stereotypical patterns of beliefs held by teachers in relation to characteristics commonly found in twice-exceptional students. Recommendations include the need for teacher education programs to do more to dispel stereotypical beliefs commonly held by educators.
The use of teacher nomination in the screening process for identification of gifted and talented behaviors (G/T) has become a widely used practice (McBride, 1992). However, the effectiveness of such nominations as a screening tool has been somewhat problematic because of teacher bias and stereotypical expectations when applied to the twice-exceptional (Hadaway & Marek-Schroer, 1992). Teacher bias and/or stereotypical expectations have had a negative effect on the screening, identification, and placement of twice-exceptional students (Minner, 1990, 1989). Lack in understanding of the sometimes contradictory and subtle differences leads to such bias. The twice-exceptional are characterized both by their strengths and areas of disability, but the combination of the two areas of exceptionality often counterbalance, causing confusion in identification. Generally gifted students are viewed in a positive light and are admired for their success and desire to learn (Clark, 1997). In addition, they are commonly seen as independent and goal directed (Lovecky, 1992). For many gifted students, the search for identity involves the realization that their exceptionality sets them apart. Consequently, they may experience feelings of being different as a result of their giftedness resulting in displays of disruptive and resistive behaviors. (Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993; Genshaft, Bireley, & Hollinger, 1995; Gross, 1998). Some gifted students are described as having adjustment problems that may be characterized as rebellious, non-conforming, confused, angry, and a discipline problem (Eisenman, 1991; Oram, Cornell, & Rutemill, 1995). Gifted students may perceive themselves as different which could lead to feelings of isolation, depression, lowered self-esteem, and feelings of being misunderstood ( Basow & Rubin, 1999; Birely & Genshaft, 1991; Dixon, Cross, & Adams, 2001; Falk & Miller, 1998 ). A review of the extant literature on the characteristics of students who have emotional/behavior disabilities (EBD), indicated that there is some overlap with similar literature on gifted students. Related to the potential negative or challenging characteristics of gifted behaviors, Reid and McGuire (1995) identified many similarities between the negative or challenging characteristics of gifted behaviors reported in the literature and characteristics commonly attributed to students identified as EBD. Specifically, they pointed to similarities around interpersonal relationships, issues of behavior and feelings under normal circumstances and problems of unhappiness and/or depression and underachievement. Neu (1993), in a study of talented students with social and emotional problems found increased emotional and behavior problems when unchallenged in school. Further characteristics include being seen as difficult, poor self-control, disruptive, intense emotions, dropout, conflict with family and peer relations, explosive, disorganized, depressed, impulsive, hyperactive, self-injurious (Bauer & Shea, 1999; Gallagher, 1997; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1998; Kauffman, 1992; Lambros, Ward, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham, 1998; Wood, 1998).
The purpose of the present study was to identify the overlapping characteristics and behaviors of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities and then investigate the extent to which teacher bias exists regarding these two groups of students. The implication is that the attitudes expressed for each of these groups will be projected on twice-exceptional students who exhibit both sets of characteristics. Specifically, the research questions driving this study included: Are there differences between pre-service and in-service teachers with regard their attitudes toward twice-exceptional students? Does having a teaching position make a difference in attitudes toward twice-exceptional students? Are there differences in attitude by major?
Sample
The sample of convenience used for this study consisted of 262 pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in undergraduate and graduate education programs in four states (Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio). The total sample contained 205 females and 57 males, with 250 identifying themselves as Caucasian, 7 African-American, 3 Asian American, 1 Hispanic, and 1 non-identifying. The sample was divided according to programs, with 135 in undergraduate programs and 127 in graduate programs. All members of the undergraduate group and 26 graduate students were not currently teaching. The remaining graduate group consisted of 90 in-service teachers and 11 full-time interns. There were three categories that contained only graduate students (Gifted/Talented, Emotional/Behavior Disabilities (EBD), and General Curriculum). The General Curriculum category contained students enrolled in a general education and a curriculum and instruction masters’ program. The All Grades category contained students in art education, music education, physical education, and computer science.
The instrument used for this study consisted of 66 words or phrases commonly used to describe characteristics and behaviors displayed by students in classrooms. The characteristics and behaviors used for this instrument came from the literature on gifted students and students with emotional/behavior disabilities. These overlapping characteristics and behaviors were organized according to 4 experimental categories: Feelings & Attitudes, Behaviors, Needs, and Adult &Peer Perceptions. The instrument was then administered to pre-service and in-service teachers in undergraduate and graduate education programs. To complete the survey, the participants were asked to read each item and decide to what extent it described a gifted student and then independently, to what extent the item described a student with emotional/behavior disabilities. A 5-point Likert scale was employed for the rating process (1 = not at all, 2 = less often, 3 = somewhat, 4 = more often, 5 = very much).
Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, alpha reliability indices, were conducted to determine if a stable factor structure existed with regard to the survey used in this investigation. To answer the research questions regarding differences among the participants, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by group, teaching assignment, and major were generated. All analysis were done using SPSS software.
Initially, the data describing both sets of students were combined to determine if there were similarities in ranking for gifted students (GT) and students with emotional/behavior disabilities (EBD). After subjecting the data to a Principal Components Factor Analysis, it was found that a stable factor structure could not be derived. The data were then divided and separate analyses were conducted using data describing gifted students (GT) and students with emotional/behavior disabilities (EBD). The items on each version of the instrument loaded on 4 factors using .40 as the minimum criteria for inclusion of any item on a factor (Gable & Wolfe, 1993). The four factors derived from these data were similar enough to warrant the assignment of the same names. The factors were: Feelings & Attitudes, Needs, Adult Perceptions – Positive, Adult Perceptions – Negative. In addition, alpha reliability indices were calculated for each factor on both versions of the instrument. Reliability indices were within the acceptable range for an affective instrument (Gable & Wolfe, 1993) ranging from .80 to .89 for the GT version and .76 to .92 for the EBD version. A full description of each factor can be found in the discussion section that follows.
In order to identify any within group differences, the data were then subjected to analysis of variance techniques (ANOVA) by group, teaching assignment, and major according to instrument version.
The first analysis conducted sought to answer the research question, are there differences in attitude, or by factor, between the two groups of participants? On the GT version Needs and Adult Perceptions- Positive both yielded significant differences (p≤.05) and Adult Perceptions – Negative was significant (p≤.001) on the EBD version. On the GT version, the undergraduate group rated the items higher on the Adult Perceptions – Positive factor and the graduate group rated the Needs factor higher. On the EBD version, the graduate group had a higher mean on the Adult Perceptions – Negative factor.
The next analysis sought to answer the question, does having a teaching position make a difference in attitudes? Again, analysis of variance was used to test the question. There were two significant differences found on the GT version, in Needs (p ≤ .05) and Adult Perceptions – Positive (p≤.001). Adult Perceptions – Positive was also significant on the EBD version, as was Adult Perceptions – Negative (both at the p ≤ .05 level). Closer examination shows that non-teachers rated both GT and Students with EBD higher on Adult Perceptions – Positive and that current teachers rated GT students higher on Needs and Students with EBD higher on Adult Perceptions – Negative.
The final analysis sought to discover if there were differences in attitudes by major. Descriptive and ANOVA results were used for this analysis. Significant differences were found in the Needs factor for both instruments, Adult Perceptions – Positive on the GT version, and Adult Perceptions – Negative on the EBD version. Post Hoc analysis was done using Tukey HSD. The difference in the Needs factor on the GT version was between GT majors and all regular education majors (Regular – Elementary, Regular – Secondary, All Grades, and General Curriculum) but not with EBD and Special Education majors. GT majors rated gifted students higher on the Needs factor than the regular education major groups. On the EBD version, Post Hoc analysis revealed differences between students designated as All Grades rating Students with EBD lower on this factor than all other groups of participants. The difference on the Needs factor was not strong enough to reveal statistical significance in the Post Hoc analysis.
The results of this study reveal information relevant to understanding the behaviors and characteristics of twice-exceptional students. There are also implications for teacher training in that the results expose the attitudes of pre and in-service teachers with regard to twice-exceptional students.
The first factor, Feelings & Attitudes, contains many of the original items on the experimental category of the same name. Both versions contain items that describe students as being confused, defensive, insecure, and having poor self-concept, resentment, and guilt. All of the items from this factor on the EBD version also appear on the GT version. The GT version contained several more items on the Feelings & Attitudes that later appear on the Adult Perceptions – Negative factor on the EBD version. While these added items (is defensive, explosive, angry, has mood swings, and is self-abusive) seem quite negative, the inclusion on this factor may indicate that the participants saw these as perhaps being less severe for gifted students. Anger, for example, in a gifted student may be expressed differently than by a student with EBD. It could be argued that gifted students may express negative and strong emotions but also possess the impulse control to mediate their reactions. Severity, in this case is in the association with other items on the two versions.
The next factor, called Needs, contains identical items on both versions. This factor contains items that describe skills and programming issues needed for success by students in school. Items included on this factor include coping skills, to learn tact, to learn self-control, and awareness of feelings. Outside support systems are also described in items like, alternatives, counseling, advocacy, intensive support, and feedback. Also included are curricular support like an individualized program, appropriate curriculum, an emphasis on strengths, feedback, and freedom to make choices. All students require such intervention, but for all categories of exceptional students, the very nature of their exceptionality dictates a concerted effort on the part of adults. The fact that both versions of the within survey contained the same items is hopeful for the twice-exceptional because it implies that teachers are aware of their needs and may possess the impetus to act on that knowledge.
The final two factors consist of items that describe how the student is viewed by others and are called Adult Perceptions – Positive and Adult Perceptions – Negative. On the positive factor, and as might be expected, there are more positively laden items on the GT version. Items included on both versions of this factor include high achiever, successful, does well academically, and has a desire to know and learn. However, participant’s viewed GT students as possessing more positive traits like personal power, independence, and are admired for their abilities. The inclusion of two items, Intense and Corrects the teacher on this factor for the GT students indicate that these traits are viewed more positively in GT students than in students with EBD. Intensity as a characteristic of gifted students is related to task commitment and motivation. Gifted students are often viewed as being intensely interested in a topic or area, their intensity is also seen in the depth of knowledge they may possess in an area of study.
The Adult Perceptions – Negative factor is interesting because of the items that differ by version. For example, the only item on the GT version not appearing on the EBD version is intermittent attendance. In fact, this item does not appear on any factor on the EBD version. As discussed briefly above, there are several items that appear on the EBD version in the Adult Perceptions – Negative factor that appear on the Feelings &Attitudes factor for the GT version. The Adult Perceptions – Negative factor contains many strongly worded items like, seen as dangerous, discipline problem, viewed as resistive, and seen as dropouts or dopers. It is quite interesting that the items considered Feelings & Attitudes for GT students are linked to more negative perceptions for students with EBD.
The results of the analysis that compared the factors by participant groups revealed some very interesting patterns. The items on the scales seem to fall into stereotypical patterns. As Minner (1990) states “Teachers, like all people, hold a variety of biases and stereotypes about specific groups of children. These biases and stereotypes stem from their experiences, their training, and other factors” (p. 37). In general, there appeared to be a difference in overall perceptions of the descriptors in the pre-service and in-service groups. Of particular interest in the present study are the differences in items between the two versions on the Feelings & Attitudes factor on the GT version and the Adult Perceptions – Negative on the EBD version. The items seem to have different meanings for the two groups of students being described. What is considered negative for students with EBD appears to be an accepted part of the emotional life of the GT student.
Generally, the graduate group saw the EBD group as having more negative characteristics and the GT group as having more needs. This contrasts the stereotype that gifted students are well adjusted and do not require extra assistance (Neihart, 1998: Parker, 1996; Pyryt, & Mendaglio, 1994). It is hopeful from the perspective of those who work with this diverse group of students, that these teachers understand that all students require assistance and advocacy. The undergraduate group viewed both the GT and EBD group more positively overall. Their limited experience working with these two groups of students may result in their overgeneralization of stereotypical characteristics and optimism. This supports the work of Minner (1990) in that less-experienced teachers tend to hold unrealistic views and may not see the nuance in behaviors that is witnessed over time.
The results show that undergraduate students who were not currently teaching were more positive (APP) about both GT and students with EBD than were in-service teachers in the graduate group. In-service teachers on the other hand rated GT students higher on items in the Needs factor. Students with EBD were also perceived more negatively (APN) by in-service teachers than by the pre-service teachers. This shows that one’s experience may have a direct influence on one’s opinion about different groups of students. The implication for gifted students is that more experience increases the likelihood that a teacher will see them as having educational and emotional needs that require attention or advocacy. For the student with EBD, the teachers’ perception may become more negative, which may decrease the likelihood that they will be considered for enrichment services.
This difference in perception of similar/same characteristics by in-service and preservice teachers has been reported in the literature. Schwartz, Wolfe and Cassar (1997) reported marked contrasts in the perception of experienced teachers and preservice teachers when referring students labeled EBD. They concluded that experienced teachers rely on their past experiences as well as specific characteristics when referring children for special education and further that “experienced teachers showed a different pattern of characteristics influencing their referral decisions than teachers who had not yet taught” (p. 59).
Analysis by major revealed that participants enrolled in All Grades programs rated students with EBD lower on Adult Perceptions – Negative than other groups. The very nature of the classes taught by these teachers, i.e. Art, Music, P.E., may be the reason for these results. These teachers, for the most part, see the students for a limited time in the day and the coursework covered may be more intrinsically motivating to the students, thus causing more positive behaviors and interactions. Experience may also play a part in the results that show GT majors rated gifted students higher on Needs factor than all the regular education majors.
The results of this study highlight the impact that experience can have on the views of teachers with regard to twice-exceptional students. Overall, pre-service teachers were more positive about students in both groups. Teachers with more experience viewed students with EBD more stereotypically but also were able to see that GT students had needs to be addressed. University major had no impact on the attitudes of teachers in this study but the implication for teacher education is still strong. More needs to be done to dispel stereotypes and teacher training may be the first line of defense in this area. At the undergraduate level, topics related to gifted education are generally relegated to single chapters within survey courses in special education or educational psychology. Discussions about the needs of the twice-exceptional are more rare and often relegated to special courses or workshops. Likewise general education courses seldom address the needs of special education or EBD students. It is naïve to expect that general education teachers will not encounter students with various exceptionalities, particularly with the popularity of inclusion. If increased coursework is not possible, then practical experiences should include exposure to students with exceptionalities. This increase in experience appeared to be an important difference between the two groups of participants in this project. Teacher education programs must find ways to capitalize on the optimistic views held by undergraduates and the realism of the graduate group.
Basow, S.A., & Rubin, L.R. (1999). Gender influences on adolescent development. In N.G. Johnson, M.C. Roberts, & J. Worell (Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent girls (pp. 25–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bauer, A. M., & Shea, T. M. (1999). Inclusion 101: How to teach all learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
Bireley, M., & Genshaft, J. (1991). Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues. New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Dixon, F. A., Cross, T. L., & Adams, C. M. (2001). Psychological characteristics of academically gifted students in a residential setting: A cluster analysis. Psychology in the Schools. 38, 433-444.
Eisenman, R. (1991). From crime to creativity: Psychological and social factors in deviance. Iowa: Kendall Hunt.
Falk, R.F., & Miller, N.B. (1998). The reflexive self: A sociological perspective. Roeper Review, 20, 150–153.
Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. 2 nd Edition. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gallagher, P. A. (1997). Promoting dignity: Taking the destructive D’s out of behavior disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1-19.
Genshaft, J.L., Bireley, M., & Hollinger, C.L. (Eds.). (1995). Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Gross, M.U.M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20, 167–174.
Hadaway, N. & Marek-Schroer, M.F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15, 73-77.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (1998). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (8 th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kauffman, J. M. (1992). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth. New York: Merrill.
Lambros, K.M., Ward, S.L., Bocian, K.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Gresham, F.M. (1998). Behavior profiles of children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Implications for assessment and classification. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(5), 1-16.
Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review, 15, 18-25.
McBride, N. (1992). Early identification of the gifted and talented students: Where do teachers stand? Gifted Education International, 8, 19-22
Minner, S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of case descriptions of LD gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34 , 37-39.
Minner, S. (1989). Initial referral recommendations of teachers toward gifted students with behavioral problems. Roeper Review, 12, 78-80.
Neihart, M. (1998). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the Empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17.
Neu, T.W. (1993). Case studies of gifted students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Oram, G. D., Cornell, D. G., & Rutemiller, L. A. (1995). Relations between academic aptitude and psychosocial adjustment in gifted program students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 236-244.
Parker, W. (1996). Psychological adjustment in mathematically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 154-157.
Pyryt, M., & Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 299-305.
Reid, B., & McGuire, M. (1995). Square pegs in round holes-these kids don’t fit: Bright students with behavior problems. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Schwartz, N. H., Wolf, J. N., & Cassar, R. (1997). Predicting teacher referrals of emotionally disturbed children. Psychology in the Schools, 34(1), 51-61.
Wood, J.W. (1998). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings (3 rd ed.). New Jersey: Merrill.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |