/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE IDENTIFICATION OF ELEMENTARY

AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AS POTENTIALLY GIFTED LEARNERS

by

Letitia ReNaé Calloway

__________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Letitia ReNaé Calloway

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank God Almighty for his many blessings. I would like to thank
my dissertation committee, which consisted of my chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, Dr. Linda
Fischer, and Dr. Alan Green. I would like to thank the teachers who participated in this
research study. I would like to thank my family and friends for their support. I would like
to thank my husband for his never ending love and encouragement.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables v
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Significance of the Study 6
Assumptions 7
Limitations 7
Delimitations 7
Definitions 7

Chapter Two: Literature Review 11
Historical Perspective 11
Theoretical Frameworks 13
Underrepresentation 15
Identification 18
Multicultural Education 23
Teacher Perceptions 24
Learning Styles 25
Instructional Strategies 27
Conclusion to Chapter Two 29

Chapter Three: Methodology 31
Introduction to Chapter Three 31
Research Questions 34
Nature of the Study 35
Participants 37
Instrument 38
Data Collection 38
Data Analysis 39
Pilot Study Findings 39
Conclusion to Chapter Three 40

iv
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis 42
Introduction to Chapter Four 42
Findings 43
Demographics 43
Summary to Chapter Four 78

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications 83
Summary of the Study 83
Key Findings 83
Family Relationships 85
Behavioral Characteristics of Students 87
Physical Appearances of Students 89
Classroom Behavior 90
Learning Styles 92
Instructional Strategies 95
Differentiated Curriculum Strategies 97
Educational Materials 97
Curriculum Strategies 98
Scenarios 99
Conclusions to Study 101
Implications 102
Future Research 103

References 104
Appendices
Appendix A: Introductory Email 117
Appendix B: GATE Identification Survey (GIS) 118
Appendix C: Consent to Participate Form 125
Appendix D: Research/Survey Question Matrix 128
Appendix E. Pilot Study Findings 129

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participants 43

Table 2: School Location 44

Table 3: Gender 44

Table 4: Ethnicity of Teachers 44

Table 5: Grade Level Taught 45

Table 6: Years Teaching 46

Table 7: Ethnicity of Students 46

Table 8: Students Identified as Gifted and Talented 47

Table 9: Familial Trait: Single Parent Home 48

Table 10: Familial Trait: Parent Incarcerated 49

Table 11: Familial Trait: Lives in Foster Care 49

Table 12: Familial Trait: History of Substance Abuse 49

Table 13: Familial Trait: Public Assistance 49

Table 14: Behavioral Characteristic: Misbehaves in Class 52

Table 15: Behavioral Characteristic: Constant Use of Slang 52

Table 16: Behavioral Characteristic: Always Late for School 52

Table 17: Physical Attribute: Comes to School Hungry 54

Table 18: Physical Attribute: Clothes are Unkempt 54

Table 19: Physical Attribute: Comes to School Dirty 54

Table 20: Teacher Behavior: Offering Praise and Encouragement 56

Table 21: Learning Style: Loosely Structured Environments 57

vi
Table 22: Learning Style: General Concepts 57

Table 23: Learning Style: Focus on the Whole 57

Table 24: Learning Style: Working with other Students 58

Table 25: Learning Style: Preference for Cooperative Learning 58

Table 26: Learning Style: Oral Communication 58

Table 27: Learning Style: Creative and Active Environments 59

Table 28: Learning Style: Self-Expression 59

Table 29: Instructional Strategy: Diverse Interaction Patterns 62

Table 30: Instructional Strategy: Peer Teaching 62

Table 31: Instructional Strategy: Demonstrations 63

Table 32: Instructional Strategy: Oral Presentations 63

Table 33: Instructional Strategy: Role Playing 63

Table 34: Instructional Strategy: Brainstorming 64

Table 35: Instructional Strategy: Cooperative Learning 64

Table 36: Instructional Strategy: Direct Instruction 64

Table 37: Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Acceleration 67

Table 38: Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Cluster Grouping 68

Table 39: Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Compacting 68
the Curriculum

Table 40: Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Differentiated Curriculum 68

Table 41: Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Independent Study 69

Table 42: Educational Materials: Multicultural Perspectives 71

Table 43: Educational Materials: Bulletin Boards 71

vii
Table 44: Curriculum Strategy: Involving Creative Arts 72

Table 45: Curriculum Strategy: Using Conflict Resolution 73

Table 46: Curriculum Strategy: Contributions of AA 73

Table 47: Scenario with Shaun 75

Table 48: Scenario with Maggie 75

Table 49: Scenario with Peter 76

Table 50: Scenario with Susan 76

Table 51: Scenario with Sherry 77

Table 52: Scenario with Tom 78

Table 53: Summary of Research 79
Table 54: Response Percentages to Survey Question #17 84
Table 55: Response Percentages to Survey Question #18 87
Table 56: Response Percentages to Survey Question #19 88
Table 57: Response Percentages to Survey Question #26 90
Table 58: Response Percentages to Survey Questions 9-16 91
Table 59: Response Percentages to Survey Questions 8 and 23 94
Table 60: Response Percentages to Survey Question #8 97
Table 61: Response Percentages to Survey Questions 20-21 97
Table 62: Response Percentages to Survey Questions 22, 24-25 98
Table 63: Response Percentages to Scenarios 99

viii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research study was to examine factors that influence the
identification of elementary African American students for gifted programs and to
discover why these students are not equally represented. Concerns over recruiting and
retaining Black students in gifted education programs have continued for several decades.
This study was guided by a quantitative design through the use of a survey to
gather the data about teachers’ perceptions, knowledge of learning styles, and utilization
of various instructional strategies. The sample consisted of 40 elementary school teachers
from ethnically diverse schools located in three counties of southern California. The
survey asked both demographic and close-ended questions that related to the influential
factors mentioned in the research questions. A survey design provided a numerical
analysis of teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about identifying elementary African
American students as potentially gifted learners. Responses were coded and tabulated in
order to classify the factors that influenced the identification process for gifted programs.
The major findings showed that teachers’ perceptions of African American
students with regard to familial traits, behavioral characteristics, and physical appearance
would rarely or never influence their consideration for gifted programs. The majority of
the teachers felt they offered praise and encouragement to the African American students
in their classrooms. The data exposed that the teachers’ knowledge of learning styles was
not evident because the majority of the teachers did not feel African American students
learned in the ways described in the statements of the survey questions. The surveyed
items revealed that the majority of the teachers used instructional and differentiated

ix
curriculum strategies in their classrooms. Most teachers felt their classrooms portrayed
diverse role models through educational materials.

1
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Background of the Problem
There is a significant necessity in the field of gifted education to analyze how the
conceptualization of giftedness as high academic achievement may be related to the
disproportionate representation of children of color (Naglieri & Ford, 2005). As of 2005,
diverse students represented 42% of public school enrollment (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Nationally, African American students are underrepresented in gifted
education programs by at least 50%, and many educators search for ways to discover
more gifted Black students (Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Trotman, 2002). For the better part of
the previous century, test scores governed the identification process for recognizing
gifted and talented students (Brown, Renzulli, Gubbins, Siegle, Zhang, & Chen, 2005).
Ford and Harris (1999) stated that by 2020, students of color will comprise 46% of all
public school students; however, to date, in gifted education this increase in diverse
students has not been reflected in gifted education programs, especially in school systems
with high numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Pierce, Adams,
Neumeister, Cassady, Dixon, & Cross, 2007). To support the development of gifted and
talented students in the United States, U.S. Congress reauthorized the Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Act as Title V, Part D, Subpart 6 of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). The Jacob Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education Act (Javits) was originally passed by Congress in 1988

2
as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to support gifted education
(National Association for Gifted Children, 2012). Gallagher (2002) found that even
though culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse students represented 33% of the
school population, only 10% was performing at the highest levels. Parity in gifted
programs is a major goal, but one that so far has been difficult to achieve (Pierce et al.,
2007).
It is necessary for educators to transform their ideas about differences among
culturally diverse students in order to dispel the interpretation of differences as deficits,
dysfunctions, and disadvantages (Ford et al., 2002). This point of view prevents the
capability and eagerness of educators to be acquainted with the strengths of African
American students (Ford et al., 2002). A very low percentage of children from different
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are established in gifted and talented
programs (Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005). Also, educators should
progress beyond a deficit orientation that hinders access to gifted programs for diverse
students (Ford et al., 2002).
Years of data reveal that African American students are still underrepresented in
gifted programs. Ford et al. (2002) conducted a widespread investigation of articles in
selected education journals from 1966 to 1996 and discovered that of the more than 2,500
articles published in these journals, less than 1% concentrated on gifted African
American students. In 1978, Black students were underrepresented by 34%; that number
increased to 43% in 1992 (Ford, 1998). In 1993, African American students were
underrepresented in gifted education by 50%. As of 1998, approximately 60% of Black

3
students were underrepresented (United States Department of Education, 1998). It should
be clear that more light should be shed on the factors that influence the identification of
African American students as potentially gifted learners.
Statement of the Problem
A student is considered to be ―gifted and talented‖ when she or he performed at,
or had the potential to perform at, a higher intellectual capability than other students of
the same age (Anguiano, 2003). Most educators have agreed that gifted and talented
children can be found in all socioeconomic strata and in all racial and ethnic groups
(Clark, 1983; Kitano & Kirby, 1986). These learners exhibited high intellectual, artistic,
or creative capability. Approximately 3 to 5% of the general population had gifted and
talented exceptionalities (Anguiano, 2003).
In 1993, the U.S. Department of Education set forth its most culturally inclusive
definition of giftedness to date:
Children and youth with outstanding talent performed or show the potential as
having performed at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared
with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth
exhibited high performance capacity in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas,
and unusual leadership capacity, or excelled in specific academic fields. They
required services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding
talents were present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all
economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (U.S. Department of
Education, 1994)

Prior to this definition, most states adopted the 1978 federal definition or some version of
it (Cassidy & Hossler, 1992), which did not mention, directly or indirectly, issues of
diversity and equity. The number of states that have adopted (or will adopt) the 1993
definition or a version of it has yet to be seen. As of 1994, most states (n = 40) mentioned

4
in their policies the need to better identify and serve gifted students of color, and 41 states
reported using different criteria procedures for special populations (Coleman, Gallagher
& Foster, 1994). For example, 7 states used some form of a quota system, and 15 states
allowed trial placement or preplacement experiences. Three states encouraged schools to
serve students with potential who did not meet the standard or traditional criteria
(Coleman et al., 1994).
In order to understand the identification of African American students as
potentially gifted learners, an analysis of the contributing factors to this process needed to
occur. Because African American students are underrepresented in gifted education, this
study focused on teachers’ perceptions, teachers’ knowledge of learning styles, and their
utilization of various instructional strategies. The review of literature explained these
factors and how they influenced the identification of African American students as gifted
learners.
Purpose of the Study
Gifted and talented students come from all ethnic and socioeconomic
environments. As there are no inherent intellectual differences among people of different
ethnicities, there should be an equal distribution of needs and exceptionalities throughout
cultures (Anguiano, 2003). Even as the number of ethnically diverse students continues to
grow in our school systems at a rapid rate, underrepresentation of these students in gifted
and talented educational programs persists. Urban schools typically have a high
percentage of students who have been traditionally underserved in gifted programs
(Pierce et al., 2007). One of the major concerns in the field of gifted education is how to

5
identify and serve culturally diverse and low socioeconomic students to increase their
representation in gifted programs (Struck, 2003). Although the literature has paid
substantial attention to the role of the teacher in the identification of gifted and talented
children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to date, few empirical
studies have investigated the effect of the child’s cultural background or ethnicity on
teachers’ referral and placement decisions in gifted and talented programs (Elhoweris et
al., 2005). This study seeks to discover more information about why African American
students are not equally represented in gifted and talented programs. By investigating this
topic, is the researcher anticipated that educators will gain better insight about the
underrepresentation of African American students in gifted programs and how to improve
the process of identifying Black students as potentially gifted learners.
Three questions guided this study:
1. How does a teacher’s perception of elementary African American students affect
their identification as potentially gifted learners?
2. How does a teacher’s knowledge of learning styles of elementary African
American students affect the teacher’s recognition of these students as potentially
gifted learners?
3. What is the relationship between a teacher’s utilization of various instructional
strategies and the teacher’s awareness of elementary African American students
as potentially gifted learners?
This objective investigation was developed to gain more information about the
underrepresentation of African American students in gifted programs. A quantitative

6
method was applied to identify and characterize teachers’ perceptions, knowledge of
learning styles, and utilization of various instructional strategies. The nature of design
was nonexperimental because a cross-sectional survey was administered in order to
collect data in one setting and make generalizations from a sample that was part of a
population. Implications were provided regarding the perceptions and beliefs of the
sample that was surveyed. The advantages of the researcher using a self-administered
questionnaire were convenience, cost efficiency, and quick results allowing for
immediate collection and analysis of the data.
Significance of the Study
This study is important because there is an imperative need to examine why
African American students have been consistently underrepresented in gifted and talented
programs. Concerns over recruiting and retaining Black students in gifted education
programs have continued for several decades and, although many educators,
policymakers, and researchers have deliberated about the underrepresentation of African
American students in gifted education, few articles, reports, or studies exist on this topic
(Ford, 1998). Other concerns are teachers’ attitudes toward the identification of gifted
students, as well as their reactions to who they think is ―really‖ gifted (Pierce et al.,
2007). Research indicates that teachers develop their own conceptions of giftedness and
tend to identify students who fit these conceptions (Campbell & Verna, 1998). That the
representation is not in proportion to the population brings up the question of unfairness
and discriminatory factors, which hinder or put students of color at a disadvantage
(Gallagher, 1995). The underrepresentation of Black students in gifted education

7
programs must be examined in a contextual and comprehensive way because numerous
factors affect the recruitment and retention of these students in gifted education (Ford,
1998). This study focused on some factors that influence the identification of African
American students for gifted education programs.
Assumptions
The participants answered all of the survey questions.
Limitations
The small sample size decreased the generalizability of findings. The research
was conducted within a two-month period, which limits the researcher in the number of
teachers who were surveyed. The study relied upon self-reported data.
Delimitations
This study confined itself to elementary schools in California. The survey was
only given to teachers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in
southern California. The focus was about African American students only.
Definitions
Note: all of the following mentioned definitions can be found at
www.cagifted.org The California Association for the Gifted (CAG) publications contain
a glossary of commonly used terms in gifted education. This glossary has been approved
by the CAG Board of Directors and is consistent with the organization's philosophy and
mission, and the current research in the field.

8
Accelerated Learning – a strategy for pacing students through the curriculum at
a rate commensurate with their advanced ability. The pace should allow them to go as far
and as fast as their interests and abilities permit.
Cluster Grouping – a method for organizing a heterogeneous classroom by
assigning a group of students with similar needs, interests, and/or abilities to the same
classroom to provide more effective learning.
Compacting – a system in which students are given the opportunity to
demonstrate mastery of skills and concepts required in the regular curriculum rather than
forcing them to repeat already learned material. By demonstrating the level of proficiency
in the basic curriculum, the student can be allowed to use instructional time to engage in
more appropriate and challenging learning experiences.
Cooperative Learning – a learning strategy that combines teamwork with
individual and group accountability. A common task and/or project is assigned to a group
of students who have varying ability levels. The purpose of such grouping is to prepare
students to live in a democratic society; to help them understand group membership and
group dynamics; and to allow them to practice both leadership and follower skills. On
occasion, students who have similar ability levels are grouped together to work
cooperatively.
Differentiation – the modification of the curriculum to meet the unique needs of
learners. It may include modifications in complexity, depth, pacing, and selecting among,
rather than covering all, of the curriculum areas. The modification is dependent on the
individual needs of the students.

9
Direct Instruction – an educational model wherein the teacher provides concepts
or demonstrates skills that the students are expected to learn. The lecture method and
individual or small group tutorials are examples of direct instruction.
Gifted and Talented Students – a label given to identify students who, because of
their unique and advanced abilities, need special educational services to ensure their
academic, social, and emotional growth and development. The only reason to identify
gifted students is to provide appropriate placement and curriculum modifications. As
defined by California Education Code 52201:
Gifted and talented child means a child enrolled in a public elementary or
secondary school of this state who is identified as possessing demonstrated or
potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability as defined
pursuant to Section 52202.

Section 52202 states:
For the purposes of this chapter, the demonstrated or potential abilities that give
evidence of high performance capability shall be defined by each school district
governing board in accordance with regulations established by the State Board of
Education. Each district shall use one or more of the following categories in
defining such capability: intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership
ability; performing and visual arts talent; or any other criteria which meets the
standards set forth by the State Board of Education (pursuant to Section 52203).
Each governing board shall also consider identifying as gifted or talented any
student who has transferred from a district in which he or she was identified as a
gifted and talented child.

Thus, each district establishes its own identification standards to meet the needs of its
student population. Federal legislation refers to gifted and talented with respect to
students, children, or youth as:
those who give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as
intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic
fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school
in order to fully develop such capabilities. (P.L. 103-382, Title XIV, P. 388)

10
A range of giftedness is recognized including moderately, highly, and profoundly gifted
students.
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) – a California state categorical program
that permits but does not require services to gifted students. Funding is allowed to
districts that apply to ―provide a comprehensive continuum of services and program
options responsive to the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted students and is based on
philosophical, theoretical, and empirical support‖ (ED 52205d and 52206a).
Independent Study or Self-Directed Study – a strategy to allow students to follow
individual or self-selected areas of interest and specific aptitude by designing and
implementing their own study plans. Close monitoring by teachers is an essential
component of independent study.
Learning Styles – a theory regarding the learning mode and/or learning
environment most favored by individual students.

11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Perspective
The historical progression of education for African American students in the U.S.
school system has not been without many obstacles and adjustments. African Americans
have a history of struggling for just and equitable educational opportunities (Ford &
Webb, 1994). Bowles and Gintis (1976) point out how the well-to-do of the South saw
little value in educating the large slave populations in public schooling. Between the Civil
War and World War I, there was an increase in public school enrollments and
expenditures in Southern education; however, the vigorous struggle of Black students for
more education led to the double system of school by creating separate and unequal
schools for Black and White students.
Even after desegregation of the public school system, many African American
students are not provided the same resources and access to academic programs as their
White counterparts. Diverse students are trying to learn in an academic world that favors
the English language and White culture (Hoffman, 2006). Although African Americans
make up an individual racial group, the acknowledgment that this group has a distinct
culture is still not recognized, and it is presumed that African American children are
exactly like white children, but just need a little extra help (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Bowles and Gintis (1976) have argued that even within the same school, students are
tracked academically according to which class structure they belong to and this

12
designation focuses on different educational values for working-class, middle-class, and
wealthy students. This notion is prevalent in gifted education for African American
students because they are not identified to participate in programs that are typically
reserved for middle-class and wealthy White students (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).
The question of the underrepresentation of nondominant ethnic groups of children
in programs for the gifted and talented has been discussed in gifted and talented
educational circles for over 35 years in dozens of special conferences and countless
workshops (Bernal, 2002). In the 1960s and 70s, Torrance (1969, 1973, 1977) and Bruch
(1970, 1971) mentioned the underrepresentation of African American students, followed
by Frasier (1980) and Baldwin (1987). Bernal (1974) opened the issue for Hispanic
students, and Tonemah (1987) raised the awareness of gifted and talented educators about
American Indian gifted and talented students.
Relatively few articles in special education journals have focused on gifted
students. Of 4,478 articles published between 1966 and 1996, only 170 articles (3.8%)
focused on gifted students. Further, even fewer articles focused on gifted students of
color (n = 5). The small number of articles published on gifted students in special
education journals has significant implications given that 21 states (42%) house gifted
education coordinators in special education (Coleman et al.,1994).
According to Ford (1998), an ERIC database search revealed that between 1966
and 1996, a total of 9,801 articles focused on gifted students, with 795 of them focusing
on gifted students of color. Thus, only 8% of the articles on gifted students found in the
ERIC database during the past three decades focused on gifted students of color. A

13
breakdown of those articles indicates that 1.1% focused on Hispanic American students
(n = 110), 1.3% on American Indian students (n = 132), 5% on African American
students (n = 491), and 6% on Asian American students (n = 62); during the same three
decades, the number of articles published in five selected journals specializing in gifted
education on gifted students were n = 2,816 and on gifted students of color were n = 60.
These five journals accounted for 29% of the total articles on gifted education in the
ERIC database. Most of these journal articles (n = 36) focused on African American
students. Six articles focused on Asian American students, nine of Hispanic American
students, and nine on American Indian students. In essence, 2.1% of the articles in these
five gifted education journals focused on students of color (Ford, 1998).
Theoretical Frameworks
In 1950, Guilford proposed a theoretical model of intelligence that included an
emphasis on creative thinking and problem solving (Brown et al., 2005). The multiplicity
of more that 220 abilities caught people’s attention, as did views of other psychologists
and researchers who proposed multiple abilities. The cultural deprivation theory became
pronounced in the 1960s and early 1970s and stated that underachievement in the African
American community was related to a lack of proper socialization skills. It was believed
that the African American culture was deficient because many of the values, beliefs, and
behaviors it exhibited were dissimilar to those of the White culture (Durodoye &
Hildreth, 1995).
A connection can be made between gifted education and reproduction theory.
Bourdieu’s most important contribution to reproduction theory is the concept of cultural

14
capital. Bourdieu (1977) defines cultural capital as the general cultural background,
knowledge, disposition, and skills that are passed from one generation to the next.
According to Bourdieu, children inherit cultural capital in relation to their class origin.
Children from upper-class families will have different cultural capital than children from
working-class families. Typically, when students are identified for gifted programs, the
amount of cultural capital they have acquired through family upbringing may assist them
in the assessments that are used to determine their giftedness. Many times, potentially
gifted African American students do not have the same cultural capital as other students,
which leads to assessments that are culturally biased and unable to accurately identify
giftedness. One possible explanation may be that these students do not have the financial
means to have more books in the home, visit museums, attend concerts, and go to the
theater.
During the 1980s, the cultural differences theory was embraced, whereby
differences were not viewed as deficiencies (Durodoye & Hildreth, 1995). This theory
acknowledged the role of the child’s socioeconomic status (Banks, 1993). The cultural
differences theory contended that the worldview of African Americans was legitimate
and need not be considered relevant only in comparison to White American values (Sue
& Sue, 1990. The cultural differences theory was in direct contrast to the cultural
assumptions promoted by the Eurocentric educational system in America (Anderson,
1988).
According to Ford and Webb (1994), at least two theories of intelligence and
giftedness have appeared in the last decade that promise to capture the strengths and

15
abilities of gifted African American learners. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
(1985) concludes that intelligence can be recognized in at least three ways: contextually,
experientially, and componentially. Sternberg maintains that contextual learners are able
to adapt effectively and appropriately to the environment; experiential learners value
creativity and novelty; and componential learners are analytical and abstract thinkers who
do well on standardized tests and in school (Ford & Webb, 1994). The Theory of
Multiple Intelligences by Gardner (1983) initially included seven types of intelligence:
linguistic, logical-mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily kinesthetic, spatial,
and musical—with one more (naturalist) recently added.
Underrepresentation
Currently, although they make up approximately 16% of the students in U.S.
public schools, African American children only make up 8.4% of students in gifted
programs (Frye & Vogt, 2010). There are myriad reasons for the underrepresentation of
students of color, many of which are social and contextual that cannot be adequately
addressed by the school system (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Diverse students are
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs for various reasons, but the most
significant reason may be the use of culturally inappropriate assessment instruments and
testing procedures (Anguiano, 2003). Standardized tests and teacher nomination remain
the most frequently used identification tools in American school systems (Coleman &
Gallagher, 1995) despite suggestions from researchers that alternative methods such as
dynamic assessment and portfolios be used (Hadaway & Marek-Schroer, 1992; Johnsen
& Ryser, 1997; Kanevsky, 2000).

16
Another important challenge contributing to the underrepresentation of minorities
in gifted and talented programs is the language of the assessment for students who have
limited proficiency in the English language (Anguiano, 2003). Hadaway and Marek-
Schroer (1992) stated that teachers may assume a student is not gifted based on a child’s
language proficiency in their first and second language. There are also possible negative
expectations toward minorities and English language learners and a need for awareness of
culturally valued behaviors that may differ from the mainstream (Bernai, 2000; Hadaway
& Marek-Schroer, 1992; Weber, 1999). Another contributing factor for the under-
representation of minorities in gifted and talented programs is that often children from
ethnic minority groups are deprived educationally, environmentally, and economically
(Anguiano, 2003).
Concern for the underrepresentation of Black students in gifted programs dates
back to Jenkins’s (1936) studies of Black students with high intelligence test scores who
were not formally identified as gifted. This unfortunate circumstance has continued each
decade since. Even today, nearly a half-century since Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) made school desegregation the law of the land, gifted African American students
continue to be underidentified. Gifted education remains racially segregated, with
students of color being underrepresented and underserved (Ford et al., 2002).
Harris and Ford’s (1991) review of the literature revealed that less than 2% of the
articles and scholarly publications focused on gifted minority learners. The
underrepresentation of Black students in gifted education extends beyond identification
instruments and assessment processes, and a ―deficit perspective‖ exists whereby

17
students of color who are culturally different from their White counterparts are viewed as
culturally deprived or disadvantaged. This deficit perspective regarding cultural diversity
keeps educators from recognizing the gifts and talents of African American students.
Educators must aggressively seek ways both to recruit and to retain African American
students in gifted education (Ford et al., 2002).
Deficit orientations influence, directly and indirectly, a myriad of gifted education
practices and, specifically, limit access to gifted education for diverse students. This
information presents a synopsis of critical issues related to the recruitment and retention
of Black students in gifted education. There are seven major symptoms of deficit
thinking:
1. traditional IQ-based definitions, philosophies, and theories of giftedness
2. identification practices and policies that have a disproportionately
negative impact on Black students (e.g., a reliance on teacher referral for initial
screening)
3. lack of training aimed at helping educators in the area of gifted education
4. lack of training aimed at helping teachers understand and interpret
standardized test results
5. inadequate training of teachers and other school personnel in multicultural
education
6. inadequate efforts to communicate with Black families and communities about
gifted education

18
7. Black students’ decisions to avoid participation in gifted education
programs (Ford et al., 2002).
To recruit and retain African American students in gifted education more
effectively, educators must, clearly, shed deficit thinking. This attitudinal or
philosophical change increases the probability that educators will adopt contemporary
theories and definitions of giftedness, use culturally sensitive instruments, identify and
serve gifted underachievers, provide all their students with a multicultural education,
provide all staff members with multicultural preparation, and seek strong homeschool
partnerships (Ford et al., 2002).
In 1997, the National Association for Gifted Children published a position
statement urging educators to use more than one test to make educational and placement
decisions about gifted minority students, and to seek equity in their identification and
assessment instruments, policies, and procedures. Despite these initiatives, little has
changed in the demographics of gifted education or the practices and instruments used to
identify gifted minority students (Ford et al., 2002).
Identification
The question of whether teachers are qualified to identify gifted and talented
students has been the topic of much debate throughout the years (Gagné, 1994; Hoge &
Cudmore, 1986; Pegnato & Birch, 1959). With culturally and linguistically diverse
students, teacher nomination becomes of prime concern for many researchers (Elhoweris,
Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005). High and Udall (1983) have indicated that with
culturally and linguistically diverse students, teacher nomination may not accurately

19
reflect potentially gifted and talented students. Kitano and Kirby (1986) also indicated
that the low referral rates for gifted and talented assessment from teachers hinder the
identification of African American students for gifted and talented programs. Woods and
Achey (1990) believed that teachers sometimes have negative attitudes or expectations of
children from different culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and, therefore,
often overlook these children for the gifted and talented programs. In a more recent study,
Powell and Siegle (2000) reported that when teachers were asked to nominate students
for gifted and talented programs based on hypothetical student profiles, teachers were
found to select more likely profiles when the students’ behavior did not match expected
gender stereotypes.
Historically, the identification of gifted and talented students has been linked to
intelligence tests (Brown et al., 2005). Numerous projects funded by the Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Act in 1989 have contributed to answering
important questions in the field of gifted education. However, little evaluation has
examined how their findings are used or linked to current educational practices. Han and
Marvin (2000) conducted a follow-up study on 18 students who were identified as
potentially gifted during the 1992 Javits-sponsored Nebraska Project, which used a
teacher observation protocol. Like the other Javits projects, the findings of the Nebraska
Project provide support for an approach to educational assessment and related practices
for gifted students, especially, but not limited to, gifted students from culturally different
or economically disadvantaged populations.

20
With regard to strengths, the staff of the Nebraska Project reported that the project
did increase teachers’ and administrators’ interest around the state in identifying
underrepresented gifted students, and teachers’ attitudes and behaviors changed regarding
identification of and service for gifted students (Griffin, 1995). One of the limitations was
that the number of students represented in this pilot study was quite small, representing
less than 10% of the original statewide sample of identified students in 1992. The sample
contained no students from minority groups, so the degree of effectiveness was affected
regarding the identification of underserved populations. The sample studied in this
research had been selected on availability and willingness to participate. Moreover, it is
questionable whether the positive interests and attitudes have influenced practices five
years later. Lastly, no students in the study who were currently enrolled in gifted
education programs were identified by their behavioral traits. Criteria for selecting these
students for gifted programs did not include the 17 behaviors identified as indicative of
giftedness. Furthermore, criteria used for these students do not appear to include the use
of direct teacher observation of students’ behaviors as a way of identifying gifted
students. The research findings suggest that identification processes should be flexible
and continually used, and that follow-up efforts should be conducted to answer the
unanswered questions relative to the gifted education identification and program
practices. Changes in identification procedures need to be documented and their influence
on possible changes in program practices need to be explored (Han & Marvin, 2000).
Hunsaker (1994) conducted a survey of 39 school districts about the success or
failure of alternative strategies for identifying gifted students in school districts that have

21
large numbers of culturally diverse students. Hunsaker found that even though all
districts responding to the survey had significant populations of economically
disadvantaged or minority populations, only 20 (51.3%) saw these two categories as
important underrepresented populations of gifted students; within these 20 sites, 16
believed that finding ways to identify ethnic/linguistic minorities was a concern, and 11
listed the economically disadvantaged. Of the 56 sites, 39 returned the study survey,
yielding a 66.1% return rate.
Many of the school district personnel in this study defined underrepresented
populations along the same dimensions often suggested by scholars in gifted education.
For these educators, minority status and socioeconomic level defined the groups in their
districts who were not placed in gifted programs even though they should be. There
appeared to be some resistance among some educators in local school systems to
acknowledge the problem of identifying gifted and talent students from ethnic and
linguistic minorities and from economically disadvantaged populations. There seemed to
be a feeling of dissatisfaction with alternative strategies tried to date. No school districts
in this survey described reasons for the success or their procedures without also pointing
out problems in their implementation. A strength was that the alternatives suggested for
finding gifted students did not come from the ―blame the victim‖ perspective. The
educators in this study were aware of the advantages of expanded assessment procedures
in making educational decisions about a child’s school program. They appeared to
acknowledge the important role they could play in that assessment program—regardless

22
of the prejudicial or impoverished conditions under which their students lived (Hunsaker,
1994).
Thus, it is clear that ethnically diverse students (with the exception of Asian
Americans) are poorly represented in gifted education programs, but the nature and
extent of this underrepresentation are unclear. The majority of studies and reports
identified failed to analyze data by gifted education categories—intellectual ability,
academic ability, creativity, visual and performing arts, and leadership. Only three reports
examined the representation of students by gifted education categories (Coleman &
Gallagher, 1995; Coleman et al., 1994; O’Connell, 1986). Coleman et al. (1994) surveyed
state directors of gifted education and found that 49 states identify intellectually gifted
and academically gifted students, 41 states identify creatively gifted students, 35 states
identify artistically gifted students, and 30 states identify students gifted in leadership.
Further, 15 states identify gifted students in critical thinking, 11 identify
psychomotorically gifted students, 9 identify psychosocially gifted, and 5 identify gifted
students who have an understanding of their cultural heritage. A recurring
recommendation for increasing the representation of students of color in gifted education
programs is to use multiple identification criteria and sources (e.g., Ford, 1994; Frasier &
Passow, 1994). Most states (n = 44) have policies related to the screening process, and
most states report using more than one criterion and source of information to screen and
identify gifted students. Many Javits projects have also reported promising results when
multiple information is used (U.S. Department of Education, 1994); particularly noted is

23
an increase in the percentage of minority students identified (e.g., Borland & Wright,
1994; Saccuzzo, Johnson, & Guertin, 1994).
Multicultural Education
Banks (1995) identified five dimensions of multicultural education:
content integration: using examples from different cultures to illustrate
key concepts and principles
the knowledge construction process: how teachers use methods and
activities to help students understand how knowledge is created
prejudice reduction: how teachers use the student’s racial attitudes to assist
them in developing more democratic values
an equity pedagogy: ways of teaching that benefit the academic
achievement of all culturally diverse students
an empowering school culture and social structure: an environment that
consists of students from all ethnic backgrounds who feel included in the
educational setting

In 1996 and 1997, Ford, Grantham, and Harris wrote about the need to bridge the
fields of gifted education and multicultural education. As part of a larger study, Ford
(1995) interviewed 43 gifted Black students in grades 6 through 9 about their curricular
needs and concerns. Specifically, 41% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that ―I
get tired of learning about White people in class;‖ 87% agreed or strongly agreed that ―I
get more interested in school when we learn about Black people;‖ and all students
supported the statement ―I want to learn more about Black people in school.‖ Students’

24
comments revealed their displeasure with and disinterest in the traditional curriculum
offered in their schools and gifted programs. From their comments, it is clear that the
gifted Black students see their education as lacking in cultural relevance and meaning;
some even saw attempts to use multicultural education materials and concepts as
superficial. The gifted Black students wanted more from their educational experiences
than was currently offered. Their comments revealed that the students desired an
education that was multicultural; they sought self-affirmation and self-understanding
from the school and its curriculum. The gifted Black students sampled indicated that
educational engagement increased when the curriculum was relevant and multicultural in
nature (Ford, 2000).
Teacher Perceptions
Previous studies have shown that teachers and the general public have negative
stereotypes and inaccurate perceptions of the abilities of children from different cultural
backgrounds (Delpit, 1995; Grossman, 1995; Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974; Ogbu, 1992).
Various studies have attempted to explain factors associated with teachers’ negative
attitudes toward children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
(Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005). Cox, Daniels, and Boston (1985) have
reported that approximately 40% of the teachers in the Richardson study reported
unidentified gifted students in their 3rd- and 4th-grade classrooms, the grades at which
gifted programs tend to begin.
Educators hold different attitudes toward children as a function of their ethnicity
(Ford & Webb, 1994; Prieto & Zucker, 1981; Zucker & Prieto, 1977), gender (Gagné,

25
1993), and socioeconomic status (Frey, 2002; Guskin, Peng, & Simon, 1992; Mutua,
2001). Too often, educators and school administrators are not knowledgeable in the
identification of gifted students (Anguiano, 2003). Teachers’ perceptions of students’
behavior can significantly influence their judgment of scholastic performance (Wong &
Wong, 1998). In fact, 61% of elementary school teachers reported never having any
training in teaching gifted and talented students (Culross, 1997). The findings that
African American students tend to be concrete rather than abstract thinkers, to prefer
group rather than individual learning experiences, to be global rather than analytical
thinkers, are in significant contrast to the teaching and testing methods of most school
personnel (Ford & Webb, 1994).
Learning Styles
A number of researchers have noted differences in learning styles between
African American and White American students (Dunn & Griggs, 1990; Hilliard, 1989).
Hakim Rashid (1981) noted that the education of white children is relatively more
successful than that of black children because the schools are designed for white
education. Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994) has pointed out that educators have viewed
African American students as deficient white children. Hale-Benson (1986) concluded
that if the success of Black children is measured in White terms because psychologists
consider White children to represent the norm, then Black children will necessarily be
deficient, deviant, pathological, or precocious when considered in relation to the norm.
There is an existing, albeit not wholly understood, relationship between learning
styles and culture (Bennett, 1986; Castaneda & Gray, 1974). Discussions of ―culture‖ and

26
―learning styles‖ are essential to understanding how African American children learn
(Durodoye & Hildreth, 1995). Sleeter and Grant (1988) wrote that students whose
learning styles differ from the teacher’s teaching style are at a disadvantage. According to
Torrance, Reynolds, Riegel, and Ball (1977) there are two essential styles of learning,
global (right brain) and analytical (left brain). Anderson (1988) stated that of the two
styles, global learners are highly concentrated in the African American community.
Having an understanding of research related to the African American learning style can
help improve student learning when pedagogy is congruent with the needs of African
American learners (Bennett, 2001). Anderson (1988) has contended that as the cultures of
ethnically distinct communities vary, so do the differences in their learning styles.
Educators must be careful of ethnic stereotyping, because not all cultural characteristics
are shared by all African Americans (Berry, 2003). Boykin (1986) identified nine
―interrelated but distinct dimensions‖ that exist in the African American cultural
experience; they include:
spirituality
harmony
expressive movement
verve
affect
communalism
expressive individualism

27
social time perspective
oral tradition
Boykin (1986) stated that the African American experience is not widely understood by
mainstream society; thus the two cultural frames of reference—the African American
frame and the mainstream frame—are sharply at odds. If we recognize that African
American culture is a major socializing force for African American children and that
culture is learned, then it is imperative to examine the nature of teaching and learning
preferences related to the African American culture (Berry, 2003). From this
examination, we can determine that the learning preference is related to the cultural style,
and that teachers must develop a connection between learning preferences of African
American children and the school culture (Berry, 2003). Understanding how African
American children learn is an integral part of effective teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1997).
Instructional Strategies
The gifted and talented curriculum promotes higher-order thinking skills and
problem solving in a classroom that provides a more individualized and challenging
learning environment (Anguiano, 2003). Ford (1991) has reported that of the 48 gifted
African American students she surveyed, 38 reported exerting low levels of effort in
school, and all 38 had been identified as underachievers. Far too many African American
children perform poorly in school not because they lack basic intellectual capacities or
specific learning skills, but because they have low expectations, feel helpless, blame
others, or give up in the face of failure (Tomlinson, 1992).

28
Harmon (2002) has discussed the results of a study designed to develop greater
understanding of the experiences of gifted African American, inner-city elementary
school students. These students were bussed from their predominantly African American
neighborhood to desegregate a predominantly White school and then returned to their
predominantly African American neighborhood after bussing was dismantled. Students
were interviewed about their experiences and asked to compare environments. The results
of this study supported the work of Ford (1996), Harris (1999), Frasier (1995), and Piirto
(1999), who suggested that effective strategies for reversing underachievement in gifted
African American students include high expectations of students, accommodation of
learning styles, cooperative learning, positive reinforcement and praise, student-centered
classrooms, affective curricula, multicultural curricula, mentors and role models, and
family involvement within the school. This study also supported Ford and Harris’s (1999)
study of a multicultural gifted curriculum for gifted African American students. A
multicultural gifted curriculum provides the challenge and the affirmation that gifted
African American students need, integrating the goals and philosophies of both
multicultural education and gifted education and addressing issues of diversity (Harmon,
2002).
One of the most important implications of this study is that teachers and schools
have the power to transform the lives of their students. Teachers and schools can create
classroom and school environments, in predominantly African American or White
schools, that support their students. All of the teachers identified as effective teachers in
this study possessed cultural competence and provided a multicultural curriculum

29
utilizing culturally relevant teaching methods. The identification of these characteristics
in effective teachers as well as the characteristics of ineffective teachers and their
instructional methods offer an explanation of why African American students, as a whole,
are not achieving at high levels (Harmon, 2002).
Conclusion to Chapter Two
The underrepresentation of culturally diverse students in gifted education
programs is not a new phenomenon (Ford, 1995; Ford & Webb, 1994; Maker, 1996;
Masten, 1985; Serwatka, Deering, & Stoddard, 1989) nor is the overrepresentation of
minority students in special education programs (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Dunn, 1968;
Keulen, 1995; Reschly, 1988). Ethnically diverse students have always been plagued by
inequities within our educational structure. These inequities have pervaded not only
gifted and special education, but also general education. Despite advancements in
education reform efforts, inequities still exist in programming and instructional practices
that negatively affect students of color (Daniels, 1998).
For years, educators and researchers have debated the inherent inequities within
our educational system that prejudice outcomes for minority students. There are many
cases in which legal judgments have ruled for reform in educational policies and
practices that destroy educational equity for culturally diverse students. Many widespread
questions exist regarding the efficacy of special class placement and the disproportionate
representation of minority students in such placement. The prevailing issue today is why
these inequities, including the disproportionate representation of students of color—

30
particularly African Americans—continue in gifted and special education programs
(Daniels, 1998).
Experts in gifted education acknowledge the weaknesses associated with
traditional identification procedures, which rely exclusively on the use of IQ and
achievement test scores (Renzulli & Purcell, 1996). Problems noted in numerous studies
include the varied definitions and criteria developed by using these identification
procedures and the persistent inappropriate and biased uses of instruments and
assessment procedures (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richart, 1981; Cox & Daniel, 1983;
Frasier & Passow, 1994; Gallagher 1994a; Maker, 1996; Ormrod, 1985; Passow &
Frasier, 1996; Richart, 1985; Ross, 1993; Shaklee, 1992). As a result, programs for gifted
and talented students often have an underrepresentation of special populations,
specifically, culturally different and economically disadvantaged students (Han &
Marvin, 2000).
Recognizing the potentials and talents of all children requires a broadened
understanding of giftedness that reflects the understanding that talent and creativity vary
markedly among individuals of diverse cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic, and linguistic
backgrounds (Ford, 1995). As the number of diverse students continues to grow at a rapid
rate in the United States, student diversity needs to be viewed in a positive light
(Anguiano, 2003). Accordingly, gifted education professionals must ensure that programs
for exceptional students are inclusive rather that exclusive, and that minority,
economically disadvantaged, and underachieving students have equal opportunity to
excel in stimulating and nurturing educational environments (Ford, 1995).

31
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction to Chapter Three
African American students have been overwhelmed by intrinsic inequities in
programming and instructional practices within our educational structure despite
advances in education reform efforts (Daniels, 1998). Black students are
underrepresented by as much as 50 to 70% in gifted programs across the country (U.S.
Department of Education, 1993). Black males in gifted programs are even more
underrepresented than Black females (Ford, 1996). Black males compared to Black
females have lower test scores, lower grades, lower graduation rates, and higher
suspension rates (Gibbs, 1988). Ford et al. (2002) found the following:
Nationally, African American students are underrepresented in gifted education
programs, and educators seek ways to identify more gifted Black students. A
deficit orientation held by educators hinders access to gifted programs for diverse
students. This thinking hinders the ability and willingness of educators to
recognize the strengths of African American students. Too often, educators
interpret differences as deficits, dysfunctions, and disadvantages; thus, many
diverse students gain the ―at risk‖ label. Educators must move beyond a deficit
orientation in order to recognize the strengths of African American students.
Changing our thinking about differences among children holds great promise for
recruiting and retaining culturally diverse students in gifted education. (p. 52)

Many African American students choose not to participate in gifted programs, a choice
that contributes to their underrepresentation in gifted education (Ford et al., 2002). When
representation is not in proportion to population, this discrepancy brings up the question
of unfairness and discriminatory factors, which hinder or put minorities at a disadvantage
(Gallagher, 1995). Many factors affect the decision of gifted Black youths to participate

32
in gifted programs. This choice not to participate in gifted programs is often based on
social or external influences, particularly negative peer pressures, as well as on internal or
psychological issues, namely racial identity status (Grantham, 2004a).
Researchers have isolated insufficient assessment identification policies and
practices as a main cause for Black student underrepresentation (e.g., Baldwin, 1987;
Frasier, 1987). Although they cannot be ignored, assessment barriers are not the only
factor for Black students being underrepresented in gifted education (Grantham, 2004b).
In 2000, Bonner identified barriers that frequently impeded African American students
from participating in gifted programs, such as the very definition of giftedness, which,
they believed, excluded these students from being identified as gifted. Testing as we
know it should only be one part of the criteria utilized to identify and place students
needing gifted and talented services, and the process for identifying students should take
into account the population being tested to ensure that assessment is connected directly to
what the gifted and talented education program will focus on (Anguiano, 2003).
Beyond assessment issues, very little is known about Black students’ motivation
to participate in gifted and advanced level classes (Grantham, 2004b). Standardized
testing should not be used as the primary criterion to identify gifted students and teacher
nominations of gifted students, as they are based on the White, middle-class standards
that may not apply to African American students due to their specific cultural and
historical backgrounds and their different learning styles (Bonner, 2000). Although some
researchers have explored variables that influence achievement motivation among gifted
Black students (e.g., Ford, 1995) there is a scarcity of literature focused specifically on

33
gifted Black students’ motivation or choice to participate in gifted education programs
and services. The lack of literature and research specifically on gifted Black students
suggests that a gap exists relative to our understanding of the motivational reasons behind
choosing to participate in gifted programs (Grantham, 2004b). Such information on
motivation and choices holds much promise for educators to further address the persistent
underrepresentation problem (Grantham, 2004b).
An increasing amount of literature on gifted education has begun to focus on the
experiences of gifted Black youth in schools (Grantham, 2004a). A long-standing
concern has been the underrepresentation of Blacks in gifted programs and their
overrepresentation in special education (Grantham, 2004a). In both cases, the primary
focus of efforts has been issues of identification and of finding the ―right‖ test to use with
culturally diverse students (Grantham, 2004a). Many reports address issues of
identification and assessment by examining the reasons that schools struggle to recruit
and retain culturally diverse students in gifted programs (e.g., Baldwin, 1987; Ford, 1998;
Frasier, 1991; Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Torrance 1977). An increasing number of
publications has been written specifically to help educators work more effectively with
culturally diverse gifted students (e.g., Cline & Schwartz, 1999; Ford & Harris, 1999;
Grantham, 2002; Maker & Schiever, 1989).
Ford (1994a) broadened the discussion regarding minority underrepresentation in
gifted programs by proposing that educators concentrate on more than simply recruiting
diverse students into gifted education; she emphasized that we must focus on the
recruitment and retention of diverse students. The notion of recruitment and retention is

34
not only timely, but it also reflects the idea that efforts to increase the representation of
diverse students in gifted education must be comprehensive and systematic (Grantham,
2004a). In this regard, barriers to recruiting and retaining diverse gifted students
effectively must be examined and rectified (Grantham, 2004a). This line of thinking and
research helps educators and diverse families understand barriers (social and
psychological, external and internal) that prevent Black youth from being equitably
included in gifted programs (Grantham, 2004a).
Research Questions
This investigation sought to identify how certain influential factors affected the
identification of elementary African American students for gifted programs. Three
questions guided this study:
1. How does a teacher’s perception of elementary African American students affect
their identification as potentially gifted learners?
2. How does a teacher’s knowledge of learning styles of elementary African
American students affect the teacher’s recognition of these students as potentially
gifted learners?
3. What is the relationship between a teacher’s utilization of various instructional
strategies and the teacher’s awareness of elementary African American students
as potentially gifted learners?

The first question sought to categorize how teachers’ perceptions can be identified and
characterized based on their effect with regard to the identification of elementary African
American students as potentially gifted learners. The second question revealed the

35
teachers’ knowledge about the learning styles of elementary African American students
and how this information affects the identification of these students for gifted programs.
The third question explained the correlation between a teacher’s use of a variety of
instructional strategies and the teacher’s acknowledgement of the elementary African
American students in the class as potentially gifted learners.
Nature of the Study

In order to answer the research questions, a quantitative methodology was used
for this investigation. Quantitative methods require the use of standardized measures so
that the varying perspectives and experiences of people can be fit into a limited number
of predetermined response categories to which numbers are assigned (Patton, 2002). The
mode of inquiry utilized was a cross-sectional survey, because the data was collected at
one point in time. This information could be collected quickly and tabulated easily. The
survey design provided a numerical description of a population by studying a sample of
that population and making inferences about this particular group (Creswell, 2003). This
design provided a numerical analysis of teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about
identifying elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners.
Responses were coded and tabulated in order to classify the factors that influenced the
identification process for gifted programs. The survey asked both demographic and close-
ended questions that related to the influential factors mentioned in the three research
questions (Appendix B). The form of data collection was a self-administered
questionnaire because a well-designed, easy-to-use survey always contributes to
reliability and validity (Fink, 1995).

36
The first step was to decide where to conduct the research for this investigation.
The state of California became the chosen location because of accessibility. The second
step was to determine which area of California would be researched. The southern part of
California became the focus point of this study because of proximity. The third step
involved looking at enrollment of African American students in the public school system
throughout the southern portion of California. The California Department of Education
website provided reports consisting of enrollment by ethnicity. The fourth step was to
examine the southern California counties with the highest percentages of African
American students when compared to the total state enrollment. Four counties were
selected; they were Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino. The fifth step
entailed an analysis of the enrollment of African American students within each school
district of the four chosen counties. The sixth step was to further examine the top six
districts within each county with the highest numbers of African American students. A
total of 24 districts within four counties were considered. The seventh step was to pick
the top three elementary schools within each of the six districts of each county with the
highest number of African American students enrolled. A total of 72 schools were
deemed possible sites to conduct this research study. The eighth step was to create a
contact list of these 72 schools.
After the possible research sites were identified, the ninth step included an email
that was sent to each elementary school principal explaining the research study and
asking for participation from the teachers at each school (Appendix A). About 35
principals responded to the email and seven agreed to participate in this investigation.

37
The tenth step consisted of follow-up correspondence with each principal who responded
with an interest to participate in the research study in order to examine the best way to
administer the survey to the teachers and to discuss the research study in detail. Even
though a total of seven elementary schools agreed to participate, data was only collected
from five schools due to nonresponse of two schools. The eleventh step included visiting
each school to give the survey to each teacher participating in the study (Appendix B).
The twelfth step was to collect all of the completed consent forms and surveys. The last
step was to input and analyze all of the data.
Participants

The participants of this investigation were elementary school teachers. The
sample size was up to 50 teachers from ethnically diverse schools who were randomly
selected in order to provide generalizations to a population. The schools were located
within Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties in southern
California. Each selected school had an active gifted program as part of the academic
curriculum. In order to select teachers from the districts for completion of the survey,
schools were chosen that have a large amount of African American students within the
student population.
The sampling design was single-stage because the researcher had access to the
names of the population and was able to sample the participants directly, even though
they did not provide any identifying information on the survey. The investigation did not
involve stratification of the population before selecting the sample, but specific

38
characteristics were available about the sample after the survey was administered and
analyzed (Appendix B – Part I).
Instrument

The instrument that was used in this investigation was a survey created by the
researcher (Appendix B) containing 32 questions. The survey consisted of demographic
questions in order to provide additional information about the sample. This survey also
relied on the results of forced-choice questions because of their efficiency and reliability.
Their efficiency was a result of being easy to use, score, and code for analysis. Forced-
choice questions were reliable because they provided uniform data as a result of the
participants choosing from the same responses to answer the survey questions.
Data Collection

For this investigation, a nonexperimental, quantitative methodology was utilized
to examine the factors that influence the identification of elementary African American
students as potentially gifted learners. The survey design consisted of both demographic
and close-ended questions relating to the three research questions. The predetermined
instrument was a self-administered questionnaire. The intention of this cross-sectional
study was to provide generalizations from a sample to a population.
The participants for this investigation were up to 50 elementary school teachers
from ethnically diverse schools within Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties in southern California. The participants were teachers from schools
that have a large percentage of African American students. These chosen schools also
provided a gifted program as part of their curriculum and instruction.

39
Once schools were identified as possible sites to administer the survey, the first
step was to acquire permission from each principal at the chosen elementary schools. The
initial contact was an email to each principal, explaining the research study and asking
for participation from the teachers at each school (Appendix A). The second step
consisted of a follow-up email to each principal to examine the best way to administer the
survey to the teachers and to discuss the research study in detail. The third step included
visiting each school to give the survey to each teacher participating in the study
(Appendix B). The fourth step was to collect all of the completed surveys. The fifth step
was to input and analyze all of the data.
Data Analysis

The validity and reliability was determined from the results of the pilot study as
the survey was self-created by the researcher. The survey contributed to reliability if the
results were consistent and to validity if the results were accurate. The use of forced-
choice questions enhanced reliability because the participants must respond using the
same options.
Pilot Study Findings
The pilot study was conducted at the elementary school where the researcher is
employed. The survey was given to 10 random male and female teachers who were
willing to answer the questions to test the validity. The pilot study was conducted at the
elementary school where the researcher is currently employed. The survey was given to
10 random teachers who were willing to answer the questions to test the validity. Most of
the participants were White females who taught from kindergarten to 5th-grade with

40
between 1 to 10 years of teaching experience. Most participants described the classroom
as consisting of predominantly Hispanic students and a class size ranging from 20 to 30
students. About 60% of them stated they had students in their classrooms that were
already identified as gifted and talented. Most of these teachers felt the instructional
strategies mentioned in the survey were important in order to recognize African
American students as potentially gifted learners. The majority of these teachers disagreed
with the descriptions about the learning behaviors of African American students. Most
participants felt they would not consider familial traits, behavioral characteristics, and
physical attributes of African American students when considering them for nomination
into gifted education programs. The majority of the participants indicated they had
classrooms with multicultural perspectives that displayed diverse role models through
bulletin boards and interdisciplinary units involving creative arts. They also mentioned
using diverse interaction patterns and conflict resolution within their classrooms. They
felt that they did indeed teach the contributions of African Americans, and that they made
a point to offer praise and encouragement to African American learners some of the time
in their classrooms. With regard to the scenarios, most of these teachers would identify
the student as a potentially gifted learner.
Conclusion to Chapter Three

Educators have proposed several explanations for the underrepresentation of
culturally diverse students in gifted education programs. Sarouphim (2002) noted that
90% of school districts rely on standardized achievement or aptitude tests for
identification. Exclusive use of these instruments leads to underrepresentation of minority

41
children and of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds for selection into gifted
programs. In addition, educators have noted the inequity in educational experiences as a
contributing factor to underrepresentation of minorities in gifted programs. Ford (1998)
noted that school districts with large minority populations often experience teacher
shortages and that the schools are less likely to offer academically rigorous curricula.
Ford highlighted that culturally diverse students are more likely to be place in low-ability
groups and noncollege preparatory tracks. Cultural perceptions and attitudes toward
giftedness may also influence the underrepresentation of students of color in gifted
programs. Morris (2002) noted that the African American peer group may negatively
influence African American students’ participation in gifted programs. Because the
majority of the teachers and students in gifted programs are White, students of color may
elect not to participate for fear of losing their culture. Educators may also have
preconceived notions about the abilities of minority students (Winfield, 1986), which
prevent them from nominating these children for the identification and screening process.
Culturally diverse students may have different cognitive and learning styles than White
students, and teachers without training in gifted education may not recognize potentially
gifted minority students who show different learning styles and behaviors as compared to
those typically found in the dominant culture (Ford, 1998).

42
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Introduction to Chapter Four
The purpose of this study was to examine why teachers often underestimate the
abilities of culturally diverse students and fail to nominate them for gifted programs. This
study focused on factors that influence the identification of African American students in
particular as potentially gifted learners. Three research questions guided this study, which
examined teacher perceptions, knowledge of learning styles, and utilization of various
instructional strategies with regard to their effect on the identification process of these
students for gifted programs. This chapter describes the results of the GATE
Identification Survey (GIS) that comprised this study. The data are presented with
analysis guided by the three research questions mentioned in Chapter One. The first
section of the GIS was comprised of seven demographical survey questions. The next
section contained survey questions that were related to the three research questions. The
last section consisted of six scenarios or student profiles. In this chapter, the data are
organized by the survey questions related to each research question. The research
question is followed by a brief description of the survey question. The statistical analysis
indicated by each survey question is represented in a table format following these
descriptions.

43
Findings
Demographics
The GIS was given to elementary school teachers from pre-kindergarten to 6
th
-
grade, representing three counties in southern California, which included Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino. The survey attended to male and female teachers who
teach at suburban or residential schools versus urban or city schools. The surveyed
teachers represented a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and they taught to classrooms made
up of various ethnicities. Each table represented the data indicated by frequency and
percentage representing how each teacher answered the survey questions. If a teacher did
not answer a survey question, his or her response is represented in the Missing System
category.
Table 1

Participants

County School District School Name Teachers
Frequency %
Los Angeles Pasadena Unified Allendale 5 12.5
Riverside Riverside Unified Emerson 5 12.5
San Bernardino S. B. City Unified Rio Vista 1 2.5
Los Angeles Pasadena Unified San Rafael 20 50.0
Los Angeles Eastside Union Tierra Bonita South 9 22.5
Total 40 100.0

44
Table 2

School Location

Frequency %
Suburban 18 45.0
Urban 22 55.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 3

Gender

Frequency %
Male 9 22.5
Female 31 77.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 4

Ethnicity of Teachers

Frequency %
White 22 55.0
Black 5 12.5
Hispanic 10 25.0
Asian 0 0.0
Alaskan 0 0.0
Other 2 5.0
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

The above tables show the schools with the number of teachers who participated
in the survey. Survey Question #1 related to the teacher’s gender. The data indicated that
22.5% of the teachers surveyed was male; 77.5% of the teachers surveyed was female.
Survey Question #5 related to the ethnicity of the teacher. The data indicated that 55.0%

45
of the teachers surveyed was White, 12.5% was Black, 25.0% was Hispanic, 5.0% was
Other, and 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
The previous tables also show information about the school sites. The survey was
given to teachers from five diverse elementary schools within four different school
districts representing three distinct counties in southern California. Survey Question #2
related to school location. The data indicated that 45.0% of the teachers surveyed taught
at a suburban school; 55.0% of the teachers surveyed taught at an urban school.
Table 5

Grade Level Taught

Frequency %
Pre-K 2 5.0
K 6 15.0
1
st
grade 6 15.0
2
nd
grade 8 20.0
3
rd
grade 5 12.5
4
th
grade 2 5.0
5
th
grade 2 5.0
6
th
grade 1 2.5
Out of class 3 7.5
Mixed grades 5 12.5
Total 40 100.0

46
Table 6

Years Teaching

Years Frequency %
1 to 5 9 22.5
6 to 10 15 37.5
11 to 15 8 20.0
16 to 20 2 5.0
21+ 6 15.0
Total 40 100.0

The above tables show information about the teachers surveyed. Survey Question #3
related to grade level taught. The data indicated that 5.0% of the teachers surveyed taught
pre-kindergarten, 15.0% taught kindergarten, 15.0% taught first grade, 20.0% taught 2nd-
-grade, 12.5% taught 3
rd
-grade, 5.0% taught 4
th
-grade, 5.0% taught 5
th
-grade, 2.5% taught
6
th
-grade, 7.5% taught out of class, and 12.5% taught mixed grades. Survey Question #4
related to number of years teaching. The data indicated that 22.5% of the teachers
surveyed had taught between 1 to 5 years, 37.5% between 6 to 10 years, 20.0% between
11 to 15 years, 5.0% between 16 to 20 years, and 15.0% had taught 21+ years.
Table 7

Ethnicity of Students

Frequency %
White 108 14.8
Black 210 28.7
Hispanic 363 49.6
Asian 43 5.9
Alaskan 0 0.0
Other 7 1.0
Total 731 100.0

47
The above data showed the ethnicities of the students found in the classrooms of
the surveyed teachers. Survey Question #6 related to the ethnic backgrounds of the
students. The data indicated that 14.8% was White , 28.7% was Black, 49.6% was
Hispanic, 5.9% was Asian, and 1.0% was Other.
Table 8

Students Identified as Gifted and Talented

Frequency %
0 24 60.0
1 2 5.0
3 1 2.5
4 1 2.5
5 1 2.5
7 2 5.0
11 1 2.5
27 1 2.5
Total 33 82.5
Missing System 7 17.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #7 related to the number of students identified as gifted and
talented. The above data showed the numbers of gifted and talented students found in the
classrooms of the surveyed teachers. The data indicated that 60.0% of the teachers
surveyed did not have any students in their classrooms who were identified as gifted and
talented; 5.0% had 1 student, 2.5% had 3 students, 2.5% had 4 students, 2.5% had 5
students, 5.0% had 7 students, 2.5% had 11 students, 2.5% had 27 students, and 17.5% of
the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Tables 1-8 provided demographical information about the participants of this
study. The teachers were from five elementary school districts within three counties of

48
Southern California. All of the participating schools had high percentages of students of
color and were considered either suburban or urban school sites. Over half of the
participating teachers were White females despite the diverse student populations that
they taught each day. The grade levels taught by these teachers ranged from Pre-K to 6
th
-
grade and most of them had between 1-15 years of teaching experience. Over 75% of the
student population in their classrooms was students of color and 60% of the teachers did
not have any students in their classrooms who were identified as gifted and talented.
Research Question #1 examined how a teacher’s perception of elementary African
American students affects their identification as potentially gifted learners. Survey
questions posed to teachers with regard to Research Question #1 related to their
perceptions about familial traits, student behavior in school, physical attributes, and
offering students praise in the classroom.

Table 9

Familial Trait: Single Parent Home

Frequency %
Most of the time 4 10.0
Some of the time 6 15.0
Rarely 8 20.0
Never 22 55.0
Total 40 100.0

49
Table 10

Familial Trait: Parent Incarcerated

Frequency %
Most of the time 3 7.5
Some of the time 4 10.0
Rarely 8 20.0
Never 25 62.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 11

Familial Trait: Lives in Foster Care

Frequency %
Most of the time 4 10.0
Some of the time 4 10.0
Rarely 8 20.0
Never 24 60.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 12

Familial Trait: History of Substance Abuse

Frequency %
Most of the time 3 7.5
Some of the time 2 5.0
Rarely 12 30.0
Never 23 57.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 13

Familial Trait: Public Assistance

Frequency %
Most of the time 2 5.0
Some of the time 6 15.0
Rarely 8 20.0
Never 24 60.0
Total 40 100.0

50
Survey Question #17_1 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who comes from a single parent home. The
data indicated that 10.0% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s family structure, 15.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 20.0% would ―rarely,‖ and
55.0% would ―never‖ consider a student’s family structure when identifying an African
American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #17_2 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who has or had a parent incarcerated. The
data indicated that 7.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s parental incarceration, 10.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 20.0% would ―rarely,‖
and 62.5% would ―never‖ consider a student’s parental incarceration when identifying an
African American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #17_3 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who lives in foster care. The data indicated
that 10.0% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a student’s living
arrangements, 10.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 20.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 60.0% would
―never‖ consider a student’s living arrangements when identifying an African American
student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #17_4 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who comes from a family having a history
of substance abuse. The data indicated that 7.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of
the time‖ consider a student’s family history of substance abuse, 5.0% would ―some of

51
the time,‖ 30.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 57.5% would ―never‖ consider a student’s family
history of substance abuse when identifying an African American student as a potentially
gifted learner.
Survey Question #17_5 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who comes from a family on public
assistance. The data indicated that 5.0% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the
time‖ consider a student’s family relying on public assistance, 15.0% would ―some of the
time,‖ 20.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 60.0% would ―never‖ consider a student’s family
relying on public assistance when identifying an African American student as a
potentially gifted learner.
Tables 9-13 described familial traits and whether they were considered in a
teacher’s deliberation about nominating an African American student for gifted
education. In every trait, the teachers overwhelming indicated that they would rarely or
never consider these traits when identifying a black student as a potentially gifted learner.
The teachers felt that if an African American student came from a single parent home,
had a parent incarcerated, or lived in foster care, these traits would not affect their
nomination of the student for gifted education. The teachers also believed that a family
history of substance abuse or use of public assistance would not affect their nomination.

52
Table 14

Behavioral Characteristic: Misbehaves in Class

Frequency %
Most of the time 4 10.0
Some of the time 11 27.5
Rarely 9 22.5
Never 16 40.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 15

Behavioral Characteristic: Constant Use of Slang

Frequency %
Most of the time 3 7.5
Some of the time 5 12.5
Rarely 16 40.0
Never 16 40.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 16

Behavioral Characteristic: Always Late for School

Frequency %
Most of the time 3 7.5
Some of the time 4 10.0
Rarely 12 30.0
Never 21 52.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #18_1 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who misbehaves in class. The data
indicated that 10.0% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s classroom behavior, 27.5% would ―some of the time,‖ 22.5% would ―rarely,‖

53
and 40.0% would ―never‖ consider a student’s classroom behavior when identifying an
African American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #18_2 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who constantly uses slang. The data
indicated that 7.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s use of nonstandard English, 12.5% would ―some of the time,‖ 40.0% would
―rarely,‖ and 40.0% would ―never‖ consider a student’s use of nonstandard English when
identifying an African American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #18_3 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who is always late for school. The data
indicated that 7.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s tardiness, 10.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 30.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 52.5%
would ―never‖ consider a student’s tardiness when identifying an African American
student as a potentially gifted learner.
Tables 14-16 examined the behavioral characteristics of students. Teachers were
asked if they would consider an African American student for gifted education if any of
these behaviors were exhibited. Some of the participants stated that misbehavior in class
would have an impact on their nomination but constant use of slang and tardiness for
school would rarely or never influence their consideration.

54
Table 17

Physical Attribute: Comes to School Hungry

Frequency %
Most of the time 1 2.5
Some of the time 5 12.5
Rarely 11 27.5
Never 23 57.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 18

Physical Attribute: Clothes are Unkempt

Frequency %
Most of the time 1 2.5
Some of the time 4 10.0
Rarely 12 30.0
Never 23 57.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 19

Physical Attribute: Comes to School Dirty

Frequency %
Most of the time 1 2.5
Some of the time 4 10.0
Rarely 12 30.0
Never 23 57.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #19_1 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who comes to school hungry. The data
indicated that 2.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s nutritional habits, 12.5% would ―some of the time,‖ 27.5% would ―rarely,‖ and

55
57.5% would ―never‖ consider a student’s nutritional habits when identifying an African
American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #19_2 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student whose clothes are unkempt. The data
indicated that 2.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider the
condition of a student’s clothes, 10.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 30.0% would ―rarely,‖
and 57.5% would ―never‖ consider the condition of a student’s clothes when identifying
an African American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Survey Question #19_3 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student who has poor personal hygiene. The data
indicated that 2.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―most of the time‖ consider a
student’s physical appearance, 10.0% would ―some of the time,‖ 30.0% would ―rarely,‖
and 57.5% would ―never‖ consider a student’s physical appearance when identifying an
African American student as a potentially gifted learner.
Tables 17-19 pertained to the physical appearance of students and how that
quality would affect a teacher’s consideration for gifted education. With regard to all
physical attributes mentioned, the majority of the teachers stated these factors would
rarely or never factor in to their decision to consider an African American student for
gifted education. The teachers did not show a concern if the student came to school
hungry, wore clothes that were unkempt, or came to school dirty with regard to their
nomination of the student as a potentially gifted learner.

56
Table 20

Teacher Behavior: Offering Praise and Encouragement

Frequency %
Most of the time 32 80.0
Some of the time 6 15.0
Rarely 2 5.0
Never 0 0.0
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #26 related to the teacher’s consideration of nominating for
gifted education an African American student with regard to the extent that the teacher
makes it a point to offer praise and encouragement. The data indicated that 80.0% of the
teachers surveyed responded that they ―most of the time‖ offered positive reinforcement,
15.0% ―some of the time,‖ and 5.0% ―rarely‖ offered positive reinforcement to African
American learners in their classrooms.
The surveyed teachers rated their behavior toward African American students as
very high. They stated that they offered praise and encouragement to these students most
of the time. Only two teachers acknowledged that they never offered praise and
encouragement toward these students in their classrooms.
Research Question #2 examined how a teacher’s knowledge of learning styles of
elementary African American students affected their recognition as potentially gifted
learners. Survey questions posed to teachers with regard to Research Question #2 related
to their perceptions about learning, communication, and interaction patterns among
students in the classroom.

57
Table 21

Learning Style: Loosely Structured Environments

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 1 2.5
Agree 5 12.5
Disagree 27 67.5
Strongly Disagree 6 15.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 22

Learning Style: General Concepts

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 0 0.0
Agree 9 22.5
Disagree 25 62.5
Strongly Disagree 4 10.0
Total 38 95.0
Missing System 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 23

Learning Style: Focus on the Whole

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 3 7.5
Agree 10 25.0
Disagree 25 62.5
Strongly Disagree 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

58
Table 24

Learning Style: Working with other Students

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 6 15.0
Agree 17 42.5
Disagree 16 40.0
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 25

Learning Style: Preference for Cooperative Learning

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 5 12.5
Agree 17 42.5
Disagree 17 42.5
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 26

Learning Style: Oral Communication

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 10 25.0
Agree 20 50.0
Disagree 8 20.0
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

59
Table 27

Learning Style: Creative and Active Environments

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 17 42.5
Agree 18 45.0
Disagree 4 10.0
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 28

Learning Style: Self-Expression

Frequency %
Strongly Agree 8 20.0
Agree 16 40.0
Disagree 15 37.5
Strongly Disagree 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #9 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how African
American students learn. The data indicated that 2.5% of the teachers surveyed would
―strongly agree‖ about the learning environments, 12.5% would ―agree,‖ 67.5% would
―disagree,‖ and 15.0% would ―strongly disagree‖ that, generally, African American
students learn better in loosely structured environments. The data also indicated that
2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #10 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students concentrate on ideas. The data indicated that 22.5% of the
teachers surveyed would ―agree‖ about the concentration on ideas, 62.5% would
―disagree,‖ and 10.0% would ―strongly disagree‖ that African American students focus

60
better on general concepts. The data also indicated that 5.0% of the teachers did not
answer the survey question.
Survey Question #11 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students process information. The data indicated that 7.5% of the
teachers surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ about how students focus, 25.0% would
―agree,‖ 62.5% would ―disagree,‖ and 5.0% would ―strongly disagree‖ that African
American students focus better on the whole rather than on the parts that make up the
whole.
Survey Question #12 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students learn principles. The data indicated that 15.0% of the teachers
surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ about how students work together, 42.5% would
―agree,‖ 40.0% would ―disagree,‖ and 2.5% would ―strongly disagree‖ that African
American students demonstrate a preference to work with students in order to learn a
concept.
Survey Question #13 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students work on a task. The data indicated that 12.5% of the teachers
surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ about collaboration among students, 42.5% would
―agree,‖ 42.5% would ―disagree,‖ and 2.5% would ―strongly disagree‖ that African
American students prefer cooperative learning environments.
Survey Question #14 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students assess communication. The data indicated that 25.0% of the
teachers surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ that African American students believe in

61
verbally expressing themselves, 50.0% would ―agree,‖ 20.0% would ―disagree,‖ and
2.5% would ―strongly disagree‖ that African American students value oral
communication. The data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the
survey question.
Survey Question #15 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students develop higher-order thinking skills. The data indicated that
42.5% of the teachers surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ that African American students
are critical thinkers, 45.0% would ―agree,‖ 10.0% would ―disagree,‖ and 2.5% would
―strongly disagree‖ that African American students benefit from creative and active
environments that promote higher-order thinking skills.
Survey Question #16 related to the teacher’s agreement with regard to how
African American students prefer to learn curriculum. The data indicated that 20.0% of
the teachers surveyed would ―strongly agree‖ about how African American students
prefer to learn, 40.0% would ―agree,‖ 37.5% would ―disagree,‖ and 2.5% would
―strongly disagree‖ that African American students prefer to learn content through self-
expression in visual, dramatic, and musical arts.
Most of the surveyed teachers disagreed with questions regarding learning styles
of African American students. They did not agree that these students possess these
learning behaviors or have success with them. The teachers did not feel that African
American students learned in the ways described in the statements of these questions.
Research Question #3 examined the relationship between a teacher’s utilization of
various instructional strategies and the teacher’s awareness of elementary African

62
American students as potentially gifted learners. Survey questions posed to teachers with
regard to Research Question #3 related to their use of instructional strategies and diverse
educational materials, as well as their incorporation of creative arts, conflict resolution,
and the societal contributions of African Americans in the classroom.
Table 29

Instructional Strategy: Diverse Interaction Patterns

Frequency %
Most of the time 22 55.0
Some of the time 14 35.0
Rarely 2 5.0
Never 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 30

Instructional Strategy: Peer Teaching

Frequency %
Most of the time 7 17.5
Some of the time 21 52.5
Rarely 9 22.5
Never 2 5.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

63
Table 31

Instructional Strategy: Demonstrations

Frequency %
Most of the time 12 30.0
Some of the time 21 52.5
Rarely 6 15.0
Never 0 0.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 32

Instructional Strategy: Oral Presentations

Frequency %
Most of the time 12 30.0
Some of the time 23 57.5
Rarely 3 7.5
Never 0 0.0
Total 38 95.5
Missing System 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 33

Instructional Strategy: Role Playing

Frequency %
Most of the time 9 22.5
Some of the time 20 50.0
Rarely 8 20.0
Never 2 5.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

64
Table 34

Instructional Strategy: Brainstorming

Frequency %
Most of the time 20 50.0
Some of the time 13 32.5
Rarely 4 10.0
Never 2 5.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 35

Instructional Strategy: Cooperative Learning

Frequency %
Most of the time 16 40.0
Some of the time 16 40.0
Rarely 6 15.0
Never 0 0.0
Total 38 95.0
Missing System 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 36

Instructional Strategy: Direct Instruction

Frequency %
Most of the time 14 35.0
Some of the time 17 42.5
Rarely 7 17.5
Never 1 2.5
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

65
Survey Question #23 related to the teacher’s belief about how often chances are
provided in the classroom allowed students to interact ―most of the time,‖ 35.0% would
―some of the time,‖ 5.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 5.0% would ―never‖ provide opportunities
for diverse interaction patterns, with students working at desks, moving around the room,
asking each other questions, and asking the teacher questions.
Survey Question #8_1 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to teach to each other. The data indicated that 17.5% of
the teachers surveyed would use peer teaching ―most of the time‖, 52.5% would ―some of
the time,‖ 22.5% would ―rarely,‖ and 5.0% would ―never‖ use peer teaching in order to
recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners. The data also
indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_2 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to show ideas to their classmates. The data indicated that
30.0% of the teachers surveyed felt students should exhibit their ideas ―most of the time,‖
52.5% felt ―some of the time,‖ and 15.0% felt the use of demonstrations were ―rarely‖
important in order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners.
The data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_3 related to the teacher’s belief in the importance of students
having the opportunity to practice public speaking. The data indicated that 30.0% of the
teachers surveyed felt that the use of oral presentations was important ―most of the time,‖
57.5% felt ―some of the time,‖ and 7.5% felt the use of oral presentations were ―rarely‖

66
important in order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners.
The data also indicated that 5.0% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_4 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to express their ideas and thoughts. The data indicated
that 22.5% of the teachers surveyed felt that role playing was important ―most of the
time,‖ 50.0% felt ―some of the time,‖ 20.0% felt ―rarely,‖ and 5.0% felt that role playing
was ―never‖ important in order to recognize African American students as potentially
gifted learners. The data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the
survey question.
Survey Question #8_5 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to devise new ideas and concepts. The data indicated that
50.0% of the teachers surveyed felt that brainstorming was important ―most of the time,‖
32.5% felt ―some of the time,‖ 10.0% felt ―rarely,‖ and 5.0% felt the use of brainstorming
was ―never‖ important in order to recognize African American students as potentially
gifted learners. The data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the
survey question.
Survey Question #8_9 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to share expertise and effort to create a common project.
The data indicated that 40.0% of the teachers surveyed felt cooperative learning was
important ―most of the time,‖ 40.0% felt ―some of the time,‖ and 15.0% felt the use of
cooperative learning was ―rarely‖ important in order to recognize African American

67
students as potentially gifted learners. The data also indicated that 5.0% of the teachers
did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_11 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have instruction provided by the teacher. The data indicated that 35.0% of the
teachers surveyed felt direct instruction was important ―most of the time,‖ 42.5% felt
―some of the time,‖ 17.5% felt ―rarely,‖ and 2.5% felt the use of direct instruction was
―never‖ important in order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted
learners. The data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey
question.
With regard to instructional strategies, the majority of the surveyed teachers felt
these characteristics were important to recognize African American students as
potentially gifted learners. They stated that these particular instructional strategies were
used most or some of the time in their daily instruction. The participants believed that
these strategies were necessary to use in their classrooms to identify African American
students for gifted education.

Table 37

Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Acceleration

Frequency %
Most of the time 16 40.0
Some of the time 16 40.0
Rarely 4 10.0
Never 1 2.5
Total 37 92.5
Missing System 3 7.5
Total 40 100.0

68

Table 38

Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Cluster Grouping

Frequency %
Most of the time 10 25.0
Some of the time 22 55.0
Rarely 6 15.0
Never 1 2.5
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 39

Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Compacting the Curriculum

Frequency %
Most of the time 8 20.0
Some of the time 20 50.0
Rarely 6 15.0
Never 2 5.0
Total 36 90.0
Missing System 4 10.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 40

Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Differentiated Curriculum

Frequency %
Most of the time 17 42.5
Some of the time 18 45.0
Rarely 3 7.5
Never 0 0.0
Total 38 95.5
Missing System 2 5.0
Total 40 100.0

69
Table 41

Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Independent Study

Frequency %
Most of the time 12 30.0
Some of the time 20 50.0
Rarely 7 17.5
Never 0 0.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #8_6 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to receive instruction at a pace based on their academic
ability. The data indicated that 40.0% of the teachers surveyed felt the use of acceleration
was important ―most of the time,‖ 40.0% felt ―some of the time,‖ 10.0% felt ―rarely,‖ and
2.5% felt the use of acceleration was ―never‖ important in order to recognize African
American students as potentially gifted learners. The data also indicated that 7.5% of the
teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_7 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to work with other students sharing similar needs,
interests, and abilities. The data indicated that 25.0% of the teachers surveyed felt the use
of cluster grouping was important ―most of the time,‖ 55.0% felt ―some of the time,‖
15.0% felt ―rarely,‖ and 2.5% felt the use of cluster grouping was ―never‖ important in
order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners. The data also
indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.

70
Survey Question #8_8 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of skills and concepts. The data
indicated that 20.0% of the teachers surveyed felt the use of compacting the curriculum
was important ―most of the time,‖ 50.0% felt ―some of the time,‖ 15.0% felt ―rarely,‖ and
5.0% felt the use of compacting the curriculum was ―never‖ important in order to
recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners. The data also
indicated that 10.0% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_10 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have instruction modified to meet their unique academic needs. The data
indicated that 42.5% of the teachers surveyed felt the use of differentiated curriculum was
important ―most of the time,‖ 45.0% felt ―some of the time,‖ and 7.5% felt the use of
differentiated curriculum was ―rarely‖ important in order to recognize African American
students as potentially gifted learners. The data also indicated that 5.0% of the teachers
did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #8_12 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for
students to have the opportunity to implement their own study plans. The data indicated
that 30.0% of the teachers surveyed felt the use of independent study was important
―most of the time,‖ 50.0% felt ―some of the time‖ and 17.5% of the teachers surveyed felt
the use of independent study was ―rarely‖ important in order to recognize African
American students as potentially gifted learners. The data also indicated that 2.5% of the
teachers did not answer the survey question.

71
Most teachers agreed that differentiated curriculum strategies were important in
order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners. The majority
of the participants believed that these strategies were needed in order to identify African
American students for gifted education. A few teachers admitted that these particular
differentiated curriculum strategies were rarely or never important with regard to the
nomination of African American students as potentially gifted.

Table 42

Educational Materials: Multicultural Perspectives

Frequency %
Most of the time 22 55.0
Some of the time 16 40.0
Rarely 2 5.0
Never 0 0.0
Total 40 100.0

Table 43

Educational Materials: Bulletin Boards

Frequency %
Most of the time 26 65.0
Some of the time 9 22.5
Rarely 4 10.0
Never 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #20 related to the teacher’s classroom environment. The data
indicated that 55.0% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they would provide
educational materials ―most of the time,‖ 40.0% would ―some of the time,‖ and 5.0%

72
would ―rarely‖ provide educational materials in the classroom that include multicultural
perspectives by portraying diverse role models.
Survey Question #21 related to the teacher’s classroom decor. The data indicated
that 65.0% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they would provide bulletin boards
―most of the time,‖ 22.5% would ―some of the time,‖ 10.0% would ―rarely,‖ and 2.5%
would ―never‖ provide bulletin boards in the classroom that reflect a variety of ethnic
groups.
Most teachers stated they believe their classroom environment is conducive to
African American students by providing bulletin boards and multicultural perspectives
that portray diverse role models. They felt they portrayed this type of classroom most of
some of the time. There were a few teachers who rarely or never provided a diverse
classroom environment with regard to their bulletin boards and use of multicultural role
models.

Table 44

Curriculum Strategy: Involving Creative Arts

Frequency %
Most of the time 20 50.0
Some of the time 15 37.5
Rarely 3 7.5
Never 1 2.5
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

73
Table 45

Curriculum Strategy: Using Conflict Resolution

Frequency %
Most of the time 25 62.5
Some of the time 13 32.5
Rarely 1 2.5
Never 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

Table 46

Curriculum Strategy: Contributions of AA

Frequency %
Most of the time 11 27.5
Some of the time 19 47.5
Rarely 10 25.0
Never 0 0.0
Total 40 100.0

Survey Question #22 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for students
to have exposure to the arts. The data indicated that 50.0% of the teachers surveyed felt
the use of an interdisciplinary unit involving the creative arts was important ―most of the
time,‖ 37.5% felt ―some of the time,‖ 7.5% felt ―rarely,‖ and 2.5% felt the use of an
interdisciplinary unit was ―never‖ important in teaching African American students. The
data also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #24 related to the teacher’s belief that it is important for students
to have the opportunity to solve societal problems. The data indicated that 62.5% of the
teachers surveyed encouraged African American students ―most of the time,‖ 32.5% did

74
―some of the time,‖ 2.5% did ―rarely,‖ and 2.5% ―never‖ encouraged African American
students to deal with social issues by using conflict resolution activities.
Survey Question #25 related to the teacher’s use of historical advancements
provided by people of color. The data indicated that 27.5% of the teachers surveyed
taught a subject matter area or topic ―most of the time,‖ 47.5% did ―some of the time,‖
and 25.0% ―never‖ taught a subject matter area or topic by discussing the contributions of
African Americans.
Most of the participants believed in the importance of using the creative arts to
teach African American students. These teachers felt they provided these students with
opportunities to solve societal problems through conflict resolution exercises. Some
participants felt they spent a significant amount of time in the classroom discussing the
societal contributions of African American citizens, whereas a few teachers stated they
rarely used this curriculum strategy in their classrooms.
Survey Questions 27-32 consisted of six scenarios or student profiles. These
scenarios described different types of students in order to measure teacher bias with
regard to student characteristics that might influence teachers in referring students for
gifted programs. The surveyed teachers were asked to indicate if they would identify a
student or not based on the student profile explained in the question.
Survey Question #27

Shaun always asks questions about the topic the teacher is presenting in a lesson.
He often has a second question to ask before the teacher even completes the
answer to the first question. He usually raises his hand and jumps up and down at
the same time as he raises his hand. In fact, he seldom has his complete body in
the chair assigned to him.

75
Table 47

Scenario with Shaun

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 26 65.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 13 32.5
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

In Survey Question #27, the data indicated that 65.0% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 32.5% would not. The data
also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #28

Maggie is very quiet and thoughtful during the science unit on the environment
and she always gets the right answers on the test. However, she is hesitant to
participate actively. She states that she has never seen the ocean, forest, or desert
and she has never been to a museum. ―I don’t go places,‖ she says.

Table 48

Scenario with Maggie

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 27 67.5
Would NOT identify as gifted 12 30.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

In Survey Question #28, the data indicated that 67.5% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 30.0% would not. The data
also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.

76
Survey Question #29

Peter usually solves a problem in class by using a method that is different from
the other students in class. He likes to experiment and improvise with different
ways to figure out a problem instead of using the most common method to find
the answer. He usually works alone because the other students avoid being around
him since he comes to school dirty most of the time.

Table 49

Scenario with Peter

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 39 97.5
Would NOT identify as gifted 0 0.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

In Survey Question #29, the data indicated that 97.5% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 00.0% would not. The data
also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #30

Susan has a great sense of humor and she usually includes other classmates in her
desire to point out the lighter side of a situation. She blurts out in class many
times to tell the rest of the class about a funny situation. She is usually ―in
trouble‖ for misbehaving in class.

Table 50

Scenario with Susan

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 19 47.5
Would NOT identify as gifted 20 50.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

77
In Survey Question #30, the data indicated that 47.5% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 50.0% would not. The data
also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #31

Sherry lives alone with her father because her mother is in jail. She comes to
school late many mornings so she has to go to class hungry because she missed
breakfast at the school cafeteria. She loves to read and has an extensive
vocabulary even though she constantly uses slang in the classroom. She is a high
achiever in most subject areas.

Table 51

Scenario with Sherry

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 35 87.5
Would NOT identify as gifted 2 5.0
Total 37 92.5
Missing System 3 7.5
Total 40 100.0

In Survey Question #31, the data indicated that 87.5% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 5.0% would not. The data
also indicated that 7.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
Survey Question #32

Tom lives in foster care because both of his parents have a history of substance
abuse. He is very self-motivated and enjoys expressing his thoughts through the
songs he makes up and sings during class time. He always volunteers to
participate during role playing activities.

78
Table 52

Scenario with Tom

Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 29 72.5
Would NOT identify as gifted 10 25.0
Total 39 97.5
Missing System 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0

In Survey Question #32, the data indicated that 72.5% of the teachers surveyed
would identify the student in the scenario as gifted, whereas 25.0% would not. The data
also indicated that 2.5% of the teachers did not answer the survey question.
In the scenarios describing different students, most teachers would nominate them
as potentially gifted learners. The survey participants felt the students showed potential to
be considered for gifted education. The teachers did not show any bias with regard to the
student characteristics because they felt all of the described students showed potential as
gifted learners.
Summary to Chapter Four
This chapter presented the findings of this study. Each survey question was
addressed with regard to the related research question. The chapter began with an
introduction about the study. The chapter continued with the findings from the data. The
results of the data were presented with a description, followed by the statistical analysis
provided in a table, and concluded with a narrative summary.

79
Table 53

Summary of Research
Research Questions Survey Items Summary of the Findings
How does a teacher’s
perception of elementary
African American students
affect their identification as
potentially gifted learners?
Familial Traits
Behavioral Characteristics
Physical Attributes
Teacher Behavior
The major findings showed
that majority of the teachers
stated these items would
rarely or never influence their
consideration.
How does a teacher’s
knowledge of learning styles
affect the teacher’s recognition
of these students as potentially
gifted learners?
Learning Styles The major findings showed
that majority of the teachers
disagreed with these
statements as learning styles
of African American
students.
What is the relationship
between a teacher’s utilization
of various instructional
strategies and the teacher’s
awareness of elementary
African American students as
potentially gifted learners?
Instructional Strategies
Differentiated Curriculum
Strategies
Educational Materials

The major findings showed
that majority of the teachers
used these instructional and
differentiated curriculum
strategies in their classrooms.
Most teachers felt their
classrooms portrayed diverse
role models through
educational materials.

Research Question #1 examined how a teacher’s perception of elementary African
American students affected their identification as potentially gifted learners. Survey
questions posed to teachers with regard to Research Question #1 related to their
perceptions about familial traits, student behavior in school, physical attributes, and
offering students praise in the classroom. Table 53 shows the major findings of the study
and how they relate to the research questions and survey items.
The participants were surveyed about familial traits and if they were considered in
a teacher’s consideration for nominating an African American student for gifted
education. In every trait, the teachers overwhelming indicated that they would rarely or
never consider these traits when identifying a Black student as a potentially gifted
learner. The teachers felt that if an African American student came from a single parent

80
home, had a parent incarcerated, or lived in foster care, these traits would not affect their
nomination of the student for gifted education. The teachers also believed that a family
history of substance abuse or use of public assistance would not affect their nomination.
With regard to the behavioral characteristics of students, teachers were asked if
they would consider an African American student for gifted education if any of these
behaviors were exhibited. Some of the participants stated that misbehavior in class would
have an impact on their nomination but constant use of slang and tardiness for school
would rarely or never influence their consideration.
The participants were questioned about the physical appearance of students and
how that would affect a teacher’s consideration for gifted education. With regard to all
physical attributes mentioned, the majority of the teachers stated that these factors would
rarely or never factor in to their decision to consider an African American student for
gifted education. The teachers did not show concern if the student came to school hungry,
wore clothes that were unkempt, or came to school dirty with regard to their nomination
of the student as a potentially gifted learner.
The surveyed teachers rated their behavior toward African American students as
very high. They stated that they offered praise and encouragement to these students most
of the time. Only two teachers acknowledged that they never offered praise and
encouragement toward these students in their classrooms.
Research Question #2 examined how a teacher’s knowledge of learning styles of
elementary African American students affected their recognition as potentially gifted
learners. Survey questions posed to teachers with regard to Research Question #2 related

81
to their perceptions about learning, communication, and interaction patterns between
students in the classroom. Table 53 shows the major findings of the study and how they
relate to the research questions and survey items.
Most of the surveyed teachers disagreed with questions regarding learning styles
of African American students. They did not agree that these students possessed these
learning behaviors or had success with them. The teachers did not feel that African
American students learned in the ways described in the statements of these questions.
Research Question #3 examined the relationship between a teacher’s utilization of
various instructional strategies and the teacher’s awareness of elementary African
American students as potentially gifted learners. Survey questions posed to teachers with
regard to Research Question #3 related to their use of instructional strategies and diverse
educational materials, as well as their incorporation of creative arts, conflict resolution,
and the societal contributions of African Americans in the classroom. Table 53 shows the
major findings of the study and how they relate to the research questions and survey
items.
With regard to instructional strategies, the majority of the surveyed teachers felt
these characteristics were important to recognize African American students as
potentially gifted learners. They stated that these particular instructional strategies were
used most or some of the time in their daily instruction. The participants believed these
strategies were necessary to use in their classrooms to identify African American students
for gifted education.

82
Most teachers agreed that differentiated curriculum strategies were important in
order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners. The majority
of the participants believed that these strategies were needed to identify African
American students for gifted education. A few teachers admitted that these particular
differentiated curriculum strategies were rarely or never important with regard to the
nomination of African American students as potentially gifted.

83
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that influence the
identification of African American students as potentially gifted learners. This study
focused on the results of the GATE Identification Survey (GIS) in order to examine why
African American students have been consistently underrepresented in gifted and talented
programs. The GIS was given to 40 elementary school teachers from three counties in
southern California. A quantitative methodology was used to present the data with
analysis as guided by the three research questions. A cross-sectional (Creswell, 2003)
self-administered questionnaire (Fink, 1995) provided a numerical analysis of teachers’
perceptions and attitudes about identifying elementary African American students as
potentially gifted learners. Responses were coded and tabulated in order to classify the
factors that influence the identification process for gifted programs. Specifically, the data
were organized by the survey questions that were related to each research question. The
survey asked both demographic and close-ended questions that related to the influential
factors mentioned in the three research questions.
Key Findings

Three research questions guided this study. The first question was: How does a
teacher’s perception of elementary African American students affect their identification
as potentially gifted learners? The second question was: How does a teacher’s knowledge

84
of learning styles of elementary African American students affect the teacher’s
recognition of these students as potentially gifted learners? The third question was: What
is the relationship between a teacher’s utilization of various instructional strategies and
the teacher’s awareness of elementary African American students as potentially gifted
learners?
This study compared the findings of 40 teachers from five different elementary
schools. Perceptions regarding the identification of elementary African American
students as potentially gifted learners included family relationships, behavioral
characteristics of students, physical appearances of students, teacher’s classroom
behavior, learning styles, instructional strategies, differentiated curriculum strategies,
educational materials, and curriculum strategies. The following findings demonstrate the
responses from the teachers.
Table 54
Response Percentages to Survey Question #17
Family
relationships
Most of
the time
Some of
the time
Rarely Never
Single parent
home
10.0 15.0 20.0 55.0
Parent
incarcerated
7.5 10.0 20.0 62.5
Lives in foster
care
10.0 10.0 20.0 60.0
History of
substance abuse
7.5 5.0 30.0 57.5
Public
assistance
5.0 15.0 20.0 60.0

85
Family Relationships
Teachers may be reluctant to work with certain kinds of students, such as low-
income students, low-performing students, and students of color (Horng, 2009). In
California, Carroll, Reichardt, Guarino, and Mejia (2000) examined teacher attrition and
retention patterns in approximately 70% of California school districts between 1993 and
1997 and found that the odds that a teacher would transfer out of a particular school
positively related to the percentage of Black students, Hispanic students, and students
eligible for free or reduced lunch. Reffel and Reffel (2004) found significant negative
relationships between the percentage of youth in the gifted and talented programs and the
percentage of youth receiving free or reduced lunch. Perceptions about economically
disadvantaged students, combined with a lack of cultural understanding, may undermine
the ability of educators to recruit economically disadvantaged students into gifted
education (Elhoweris, 2008). Scholars have long argued that U.S. schools serve the
interests of capitalism and, consequently, reproduce a system of racial, gender, and class
stratification (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Scholars have also argued that cultural
discontinuities between the students’ homes and the institutionalized structure of schools
are a significant factor in the underachievement and failure of minority and low-income
students (Bourdieu, 1977). Schools are structured according to the cultural norms and
standards of ―mainstream‖ white middle-class society and success in school requires
students to demonstrate that they have learned, if not accepted and absorbed, these
mainstream norms (Delpit, 1995). The more closely the students’ homes reflect the
mainstream culture, the greater the students’ initial advantage in school and familiarity

86
with the valued cultural codes (Delpit, 1995). The ―hidden‖ nature of cultural
socialization may be central to the problem caused by discontinuities between the home
and school culture (Tyson, 2003). Lee and Burkham (2002) concurred that higher
performing students tend to come from higher income and more highly educated families.
Another important factor was the negative impact on academic performance of the
concentration of one-parent families (Caldas & Bankston, 1999). Students, regardless of
family structure, tended to do worse in schools that contained large numbers of one-
parent families. Teachers need to broaden their perspectives of other cultures and be
aware of how their own personal values can affect their evaluation of economically
disadvantaged gifted child (Elhoweris, 2008).
Even though majority of the teacher responses fell into the categories of rarely or
never when considering these familial traits to identify an African American student as a
potentially gifted learner, a disconnect exists from what the current literature states about
this matter. Many examples show how the majority of teachers lack cultural
understanding about certain kinds of students, and this situation prevents the recruitment
of minority children for gifted programs. Some teachers are hesitant to work with
students of color due to this lack of understanding.

87
Table 55
Response Percentages to Survey Question #18
Behavioral
characteristics of
students
Most of
the time
Some of
the time
Rarely Never
Misbehaves in
class
10.0 27.5 22.5 40.0
Constant use of
slang
7.5 12.5 40.0 40.0
Always late for
school
7.5 10.0 30.0 52.5

Behavioral Characteristics of Students
Tuttle, Becker, and Sousa (1988) have noted that the most prevalent method of
identifying gifted learners in the United States is to ask for teacher recommendations.
However, research findings suggest that teachers may not be the most reliable sources for
identifying gifted learners, particularly those from culturally or racially diverse groups,
and then referring them for gifted programs. Early research by Pegnato and Birch (1959)
concluded that junior high school teachers not only failed to nominate over 50% of the
gifted students in their school, but they also identified many average students as gifted.
According to Jacobs (1971), primary teachers surveyed could identify only 105 of the
students who had scored high on individual IQ tests. Cox and Daniel (1985) reported that
almost 38% of the teachers in their public school sample had unidentified gifted students
in their 3rd-and 4th-grade classrooms, the grades at which gifted programs tend to begin.
Other studies have indicated that teachers frequently emphasize such behaviors as
cooperation, answering correctly, punctuality, and neatness when identifying gifted
students (Patton, 1992; VanTassel-Baska, Patton, & Prillaman, 1989). Thus, teachers are
likely to refer the ―model‖ child for gifted education services (Ford, 1995). The U.S.

88
student population is increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, but the teaching
force is relatively homogenous, primarily European American, middle-class women
(Cartledge, Singh, & Gibson, 2008). This combination sets the occasion for cultural
discontinuities, in which teachers are likely to misperceive the culturally specific
behaviors of their students, and likewise, children will not understand the culture and
behavioral expectations of the school (Gay, 2000; Morse & Cole, 2002).
Studies in the literature suggest that teachers frequently are not the most reliable
sources for identifying gifted learners. The teacher responses from the survey showed
that they felt misbehavior in class would affect their nomination but use of slang or
tardiness would not. The current research indicates that some teachers emphasize
punctuality when identifying gifted students. Teachers tend to have an ―ideal‖ of how
they believe gifted students should act and what they should look like. Because the
majority of teachers are White females and most public school children are students of
color, most teachers tend to misunderstand the culturally diverse student population.
Table 56
Response Percentages to Survey Question #19
Physical
appearances of
students
Most of the
time
Some of the
time
Rarely Never
Comes to
school hungry
2.5 12.5 27.5 57.5
Clothes are
unkempt
2.5 10.0 30.0 57.5
Comes to
school dirty
2.5 10.0 30.0 57.5

89
Physical Appearances of Students
Many scholars have argued that schools and teachers tend implicitly or
unwittingly to favor White students over students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds
(Deplit, 1995). Morris (2005) found that teachers who linked whiteness to a higher class
and status position tended to react more positively to White students and perceived them
as more academically able. Thus, whiteness often signals middle-class status, and it may
be this very signal that results in forms of White privilege. However, social class carries
its own identifiers, the perception of which may alter the perception of race, including
whiteness (West & Fenstermaker, 1995). For example, certain styles of speech, dress, and
behavior (Bernstein, 1986; Heath, 1983), as well as urban, predominately minority,
residential locations (Anderson, 1990; Kirschenman & Neckerman, 1991) can be
interpreted as ―lower class.‖ Observers, including teachers, undoubtedly rely on their
understanding of neighborhood location and context, along with attention to styles of
interaction, to develop their interpretations of a person’s social background. Teachers
may react negatively to students who exhibit such ―lower-class‖ and ―street-based‖
markers (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Dance, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Teachers’
perceptions of students related to race and class have been shown to influence teacher-
student relationships, which can affect outcomes, such as grades, ability-group
placement, and test scores (Morris, 2005). The condition of poverty may be the most
important of all student differences in relation to high achievement, but poverty is not a
discrete, easily identifiable variable (Burney & Beilke, 2008). The length of time the
family has been in poverty, other family assets such as home ownership or a college

90
savings account, and the poverty level of the family when the child was younger than age
five all influence achievement preparation and performance (Rothstein, 2004).
The current research indicates that most educators tend to favor high-class White
students in comparison to lower-class students of color. This information did not
correlate to the responses of the survey participants. Most teachers stated that the physical
appearance of an African American student would rarely or never affect their nomination
for gifted education.
Table 57
Response Percentages to Survey Question #26
Teacher’s
classroom
behavior
Most of the
time
Some of the
time
Rarely Never
Offering praise
and
encouragement
80.0 15.0 5.0 0.0

Classroom Behavior
A considerable discrepancy exists between the makeup of the student population
and that of the teaching force, because the majority of U.S. teachers are middle-class,
European Americans, but the student population is very diverse (Elhoweris et al., 2005).
Past studies have noted that Black students’ classroom behavior is rated more favorably
by Black teachers than by White teachers, a pattern that could be a function of White
teacher bias (Downey & Pribesh, 2004). In the past decade, studies have suggested that
teachers rate Black students as exhibiting poorer classroom behavior and as being less
academically engaged than they do White students (Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey,
1998).

91
An overwhelming number of participants stated that most of the time they offered
praise and encouragement to African American students in their classrooms. There is a
discrepancy between this result and what is shown in the current literature. Studies have
pointed out that Black students receive more favorable ratings from Black teachers than
from White teachers with regard to their classroom behavior. Unfavorable ratings of
Black students from White teachers would not show a pattern of offering praise and
encouragement most of the time.

Table 58
Response Percentages to Survey Questions 9-16
Learning
Styles
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Missing
System
Learning in
loosely
structured
environments
2.5 12.5 67.5 15.0 2.5
Focusing on
general
concepts
0.0 22.5 62.5 10.0 5.0
Focusing on the
whole
7.5 25.0 62.5 5.0
Working with
other students
15.0 42.5 40.0 2.5
Preference for
cooperative
learning
12.5 42.5 42.5 2.5
Oral
communication
25.0 50.0 20.0 2.5 2.5
Creative and
active
environments
42.5 45.0 10.0 2.5
Learning
through self-
expression
20.0 40.0 37.5 2.5

92
Learning Styles
Discussions of ―culture‖ and ―learning styles‖ are essential to understanding how
African American children learn (Durodoye & Hildreth, 1995). Anderson (1988) has
contended that as the cultures of ethnically distinct communities vary, so do their learning
styles. Understanding how African American students learn is an important variable of
effective teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1997). Anderson (1988) stated that a problem of
great concern is teachers who are not equipped to identify, interpret, and respond to the
variant styles of multicultural populations, which may create barriers to learning in the
classroom.
A number of researchers have noted differences in learning styles between
African American and White American students (Dunn & Griggs, 1990; Hilliard, 1989).
These differences have several implications for giftedness identification and teaching
practices. For example, Dunn and Griggs suggested that the extent to which students are
global versus analytical, visual versus auditory, highly mobile versus less mobile, or less
peer-oriented versus more peer-oriented learners will affect their learning, achievement,
motivation, and school performance. Dunn and Griggs also claimed that, if these qualities
are misunderstood, teachers will not recognize the strengths that African American
students bring into the classroom, resulting in decreased opportunity for these students to
be recognized and identified as gifted.
Ford (1995) stated that few teachers, particularly those who have taught for some
time, have received extensive and continuous preparation in education that is
multicultural in its scope. Ford pointed out that research showing African American

93
students as concrete and global—rather than abstract and analytical—thinkers, and to
prefer group rather than individual learning experiences revealed learning styles that
stand in stark contrast to traditional mainstream teaching and testing methods. Ford
concluded that teachers who recognized and accepted such differences were more likely
to identify gifted African American students than those who perceived such differences
as culturally and educationally irrelevant or even detrimental.
If we accept that African American culture is a significant socializing force for
African American children and that culture is learned, then it would be essential to
investigate the nature of teaching and learning preferences associated with the African
American culture (Berry, 2003). It has been suggested that African American learning
styles have been influenced by cultural customs transposed from specific communities in
Africa. Both the African American church and family have been highly influential in
perpetuating these learning styles (Anderson, 1988; Hale-Benson, 1986). Shade (1997)
described African American learning preferences as an aggregate of holistic, relational,
and field-dependent learning styles. We can determine that the learning preference
African American children are most commonly exposed to and may prefer is related to
their cultural style (Berry, 2003).
The African American experience is not widely understood by mainstream
society; thus the two cultural frames of reference—the African American frame and the
mainstream frame—are sharply at odds (Boykin, 1986). Having an understanding of
research associated with the African American cultural style can help increase student
learning when pedagogy is compatible with the cultural style of African American

94
learners (Bennett, 2001). To maximize learning potential, teachers must create some
continuity between the learning preferences of African American students and the culture
of schools (Berry, 2003). As teachers consider the available information on learning
styles, they must be cognizant of their own learning styles, which are likely to influence
their styles of teaching (Durodoye & Hildreth, 1995).
Results of this evaluation showed that the surveyed teachers did not agree with
statements about the learning behaviors of African American students, particularly with
regard to loosely structured environments and focusing on general concepts and whole
ideas. The surveyed teachers also showed a high percentage of disagreement about the
statements relating to African American students working with other students and having
a preference for cooperative learning. These findings are not consistent with research
about the learning behaviors of African American students and may be attributed to the
lack of knowledge and understanding about the learning styles of this specific group of
students.
Table 59
Response Percentages to Survey Questions 8 and 23
Instructional
strategies
Most of
the Time
Some of
the Time
Rarely Never Missing
System
Interaction in the
classroom
55.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 2.5
Peer teaching 17.5 52.5 22.5 5.0 2.5
Demonstrations 30.0 52.5 15.0 0.0 2.5
Oral
presentations
30.0 57.5 7.5 0.0 5.0
Role playing 22.5 50.0 20.0 5.0 2.5
Brainstorming 50.0 32.5 10.0 5.0 2.5
Cooperative
learning
40.0 40.0 15.0 0.0 5.0
Direct
instruction
35.0 42.5 17.5 2.5 2.5

95
Instructional Strategies
Because teachers teach the way they learn, when students learn differently from
the way the teacher instructs, they are often times out of luck (Young, Wright, & Laster,
2005). Even though style of a teacher and student may differ, the differences should not
be used as an excuse for poor instruction or low expectations (Hilliard, 1992). Teachers
need to know how students learn (Young et al., 2005). If teachers were trained regarding
learning, then they could utilize this information to develop instructional strategies that
would accommodate students learning in the classroom (Haar, Hall, Schoepp, & Smith,
2002).
Levine (2002) stated that teachers can be trained to observe the brain function that
a student has or does not have and can assist the student in learning how to utilize the
function that is the strongest when learning. Torrance et al. (1977) developed two
preferential styles of learning that included global (right brain) and analytical (left brain).
The global learner has to visualize what is about to be learned (visual), touch what is
about to be learned (tactile), and move to learn (kinesthetic) by responding to word pitch
and feeling and by processing the information in chunks (Young et al., 2005). The
analytical learner can process information that is written (textbooks) or orally (lecture) by
responding to word meaning and recalling facts and dates with relative ease in order to
process the information linearly (Young et al., 2005). The analytical style of learning is
most characteristic of the classroom because the traditional American school is quite rigid
and mimics the particular cultural style of most European American children (Hilliard,

96
1992). According to Anderson (1988), global learners are highly concentrated in the
African American community.
How teachers interact and instruct students in the classroom is important to
children learning (Young et al., 2005). Goodlad (1984) indicated that a lack of
instructional variability was found in most classrooms regardless of ethnicity, thus
causing teachers to use a limited repertoire of pedagogical methods. Boykin (1986) found
that the performance of African American children was enhanced when teachers used
verve, or high stimulation, in the classroom. Irvine (1991) stated the importance of
movement in the classroom. According to Hale-Benson (1994), learning activities that
involve physical movement contribute to the achievement of African American children.
To assist them in their achievement, teachers should create movement, provide
opportunities for personal oral expression, and create learning activities that are energetic
and lively, even if they have to move outside the walls of the classroom (Young et al.,
2005). Bennett (1995) has detailed instructional concepts and strategies known to be
effective in working with the cultural and individual differences students bring to the
classroom as cooperative learning and peer tutoring.
The survey participants responded that they felt the mentioned instructional
strategies were important to recognizing African American students as potentially gifted
learners. This result is not supported by the literature, because the classroom of the
traditional American school is conducive to the cultural style of most European American
children. Most African American students are global learners instead of the analytical
style that is exhibited in most American classrooms.

97
Table 60
Response Percentages to Survey Question #8
Differentiated
curriculum
strategies
Most of
the time
Some of
the time
Rarely Never Missing
System
Acceleration 40.0 40.0 10.0 2.5 7.5
Cluster
grouping
25.0 55.0 15.0 2.5 2.5
Compacting
the curriculum
20.0 50.0 15.0 5.0 10.0
Differentiated
curriculum
42.5 45.0 7.5 0.0 5.0
Independent
study
30.0 50.0 17.5 0.0 2.5

Differentiated Curriculum Strategies
Independent study is another strategy that recognizes the learning styles of
African American students (Bennett, 1995).
Table 61
Response Percentages to Survey Questions 20-21
Educational
materials
Most of
the time
Some of
the time
Rarely Never
Multicultural
perspectives
55.0 40.0 5.0 0.0
Bulletin boards 65.0 22.5 10.0 2.5

Educational Materials
Ford (1995) noted that students find school more interesting, engaging,
motivating, and relevant when they learn about their own culture and the culture of
others. School personnel must carefully and consistently examine the materials and
resources used in curriculum and instruction.

98
Even though the surveyed teachers felt they used educational materials that
provided multicultural perspectives in their classrooms, the literature does not support
this finding. Most students do not feel their educational materials are a true representation
of the diversity in the classroom. Students want to use information in school that is
reflective of their culture.
Table 62
Response Percentages to Survey Questions 22, 24-25
Curriculum
strategies
Most of
the Time
Some of
the Time
Rarely Never Missing
System
Involving
creative arts
50.0 37.5 7.5 2.5 2.5
Using conflict
resolution
62.5 32.5 2.5 2.5
Contributions
of African
Americans
27.5 47.5 25.0 0.0

Curriculum Strategies
In 1995, Ford published the results of a study that examined student perceptions
of school curricula. Most students felt their education focused on the successes,
contributions, accomplishment, and histories of White Americans. Students observed that
their classes seldom focused on minority groups. The students felt their classes
consistently focused on the same minority heroes while ignoring contemporary and
controversial minority persons. Students recognized that the superficial learning
experiences also occurred primarily during February, Black History Month.
Most of the participants in this study felt that they used curriculum strategies
some or most of the time that were beneficial to African American students. More than

99
half believed they provided curriculum that depicted the contributions of African
Americans. The literature does not support this finding, because most African American
students do not feel that their heroes are discussed in the classroom setting except during
one month out of the school year.
Table 63
Response Percentages to Scenarios
Scenarios Would Identify
as Gifted
Would NOT
Identify as Gifted
Missing
System
Shaun 65.0 32.5 2.5
Maggie 67.5 30.0 2.5
Peter 97.5 0.0 2.5
Susan 47.5 50.0 2.5
Sherry 87.5 5.0 7.5
Tom 72.5 25.0 2.5

Scenarios
Numerous studies have described the influence that teacher expectations have on
student achievement. When making referrals, teachers often emphasize such behaviors as
cooperation, answering correctly, punctuality, and neatness (Cox, Daniels & Boston,
1985). These may not be the behaviors that gifted minority (and underachieving) students
demonstrate (Ford, 1998). Likewise, such characteristics as race, gender, socioeconomic
status, and family structure all influence teachers’ perceptions of students (Good, 1981;
Irvine, 1991; Winfield, 1986). Even when minority students have been identified as
gifted, teachers may still have low expectations (Ford, 1996; Jenkins, 1936).
High and Udall (1983) found that White teachers underreferred African American
students for gifted education programs. Burnstein and Cabello (1989) found that 38% of
student teachers believed that poor academic achievement and performance among

100
students of color was due to cultural deficits. These low teacher expectations and
negative perceptions can result in the low referral rates of ethnically diverse students for
gifted education (Ford, 1998). It is an unfortunate reality that problems related to racism,
segregation, and long-held beliefs concerning minority groups have resulted in doubtful
benefits for students whose rights the policies were designed to protect in the first place
(Artiles & Trent, 1994).
Too often students are tested based on nominations from their teacher. And, also
too often, educators and school administrators are not knowledgeable about the
identification of gifted students (Anguiano, 2003). In fact, 61% of elementary school
teachers reported never having any training in teaching gifted and talented students
(Culross, 1997). Teacher nominations may also not be accurate indicators of possible
giftedness, because a student can be gifted and not have straight A’s or be the best
behaved. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ behavior can significantly influence their
judgment of scholastic performance (Wong & Wong, 1998).
Most of the survey participants would identify the students described in the
scenarios as potentially gifted learners. Many studies in the literature do not support this
finding, because many teachers are not properly trained to identify gifted students. Many
teachers do not refer potentially gifted students of color if they do not exhibit behaviors
like cooperation and neatness. Studies also show that White teachers tend to underrefer
African American students. Many White teachers also have low expectations of Black
students.

101
Conclusions to Study
The underrepresentation of minority children in programs for the gifted has been a
public issue for many years—but has achieved no resolution. Given recent court
decisions against affirmative action in admissions decisions, it should be clear that to
attract, select, and retain culturally or linguistically different (CLD) students, gifted and
talented programs must respond to the political and social contexts in which gifted and
talented programs operate (Bernal, 2002). The best way to ensure the effective presence
of multicultural methodologies and concerns is to provide training for the teachers who
will be teaching gifted and talented students and to recruit teachers who are authentic
representatives of their respective minority groups into the ranks of the gifted and
talented teaching staff (Banks, 1995). To attain the goal of equitable representation of
gifted and talented students, districts must have minority teachers represented within their
staff of gifted and talented teachers, multiculturally trained gifted and talented teachers
using a clearly differentiated multicultural curriculum, and evaluation data to support the
work of these dedicated professionals (Bernal, 2002). Ford, Grantham, and Harris (1996)
issued a wake-up call to the profession to enlist minority teachers not only to model
professional behaviors to minority gifted and talented students but also to expose White
students to the perspectives that minority instructors bring to a classroom.
The issue of attrition is a contributing factor in the involvement of African
American students within gifted programs. Many of these students do not receive
adequate support and are more likely to leave these programs. Educators need to find

102
creative and innovative methods to retain African American students by providing the
necessary support to being successful.
There also needs to be more informal ways to identify students of color for gifted
and talented programs. African American students are harmed by standardized tests
because many of them are biased. There should be a myriad of resources used to
nominate these students for gifted education.
Teachers need to receive more professional development so that they are able to
teach more effectively to students of color and accurately identify potential learners for
gifted education. Many teachers have not had the proper training to appropriately serve
these student populations. This lack of knowledge and of preparation of these educators
leads to a smaller pool of applicants who are identified as potentially gifted students.
Implications

In order for teachers to effectively teach African American students in gifted
programs, they should be aware of the specific characteristics of gifted African American
students and how their cultural, family, and social backgrounds affect their experiences in
the gifted program and the way they learn (Flowers, Zhang, Moore, & Flowers, 2004).
Flowers et al. (2004) also stated that based on this knowledge, teachers can develop
culturally responsive curricula, as well as an instructional style that better meets the
specific needs of these students.
Harmon (2002) suggested that 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 ethnically diverse students. Harmon further

103
believed that in order to meet the needs of gifted students of color, teachers need to have
training in multicultural education, they need to understand the needs of gifted minority
students and the potential problems they may encounter in gifted programs, and they
must develop programs that meet the needs of these students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Robins, Lindsey, Lindsey, and Terrell (2002) also recommended that teachers be
culturally proficient in order to teach effectively in a diverse society. They believe a
culturally proficient teacher should be able to understand different cultures, value
diversity, adapt to diversity, and be competent to deal with the differences by adapting
programs and practices to teach diverse students effectively. Robins et al. (2002) also
suggested that culturally proficient teachers be able to evaluate their own cultural beliefs
and be aware of how their cultural norms affect individuals from different cultures.
Future Research
More research is needed in gifted education that examines how and why minority
students are underrepresented in gifted education programs. More efforts must focus on
the recruitment and retention of minority students in gifted education programs. The
persistent and pervasive underrepresentation of minority students represents a tragic and
unnecessary waste of human potential and promise (Ford, 1998).

104
REFERENCES
Ainsworth-Darnell, J., & Downey, D. (1998). Assessing the oppositional culture
explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance. American
Sociological Review, 63, 536–553.

Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richart, S. (1981). National survey of identification
practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124-132.

Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39, 2–9.

Anguiano, L. (2003). Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented
education. Multicultural Education, 11(1), 32–34.

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special
education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437.

Baldwin, A. Y. (1987). Undiscovered diamonds: The minority gifted child. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 10, 271-285.

Banks, J. A. (1984). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (3
rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and
practice. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3–
49). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. Journal of
Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400.

Bennett, C. (1986). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bennett, C. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education, theory, and practice.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.

105
Bernai, H. M. (2000). The quintessential features of gifted education as seen from a
multicultural perspective. In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds.), Creativity and
giftedness in culturally diverse students (pp. 159–191). Cresskill: NJ: Harrington
Press.

Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican American children: An ethno-scientific
perspective. California Journal of Educational Research, 25, 261-273.

Bernal, E. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally
and linguistically different students in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 82–
89.

Berry, R. Q. (2003). Mathematics standards, cultural styles, and learning preferences:
The plight and the promise of african american students. The Clearing House,
76(5), 244–249.

Bernstein, B. (1986). On pedagogic discourse. In John G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically
disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 164-171.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Richard Arum &
Irene Beattie (Eds.), The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of
education (pp. 56–69). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture.
London: Sage.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform
and the contradictions of economic life (pp. 102–124). New York: Basic Books.

Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the school of Afro-American children. In
U. Nesser (Ed.),The school achievement of minority children: New
perspectives.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, S., Renzulli, J., Gubbins, E., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 49(1), 68–80.

Bruch, C. B. (1970, March). A proposed rationale for the identification and development
of the gifted disadvantaged. Gifted Children Newsletter, pp. 40-49.

106
Bruch, C. B. (1971). Modification of procedures for identification of the gifted. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 15, 267-272.

Burney, V., & Beilke, J. (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31(3), 171–199.

Burstein, N. D., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparing teachers to work with culturally diverse
students: Another educational model. Journal of Teacher Education, 540(5), 9–
16.

www.cagifted.org (2003). California Association for the Gifted (CAG).

Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. L. (1999). A multilevel examination of student, school, and
district-level effects on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
93, 91–100.

Campbell, J. R., & Verna, M. A. (1998). Messages from the field: American teachers of
the gifted talk back to the research community. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Carroll, S. J., Reichardt, R. E., Guarino, C. M., & Mejia, A. (2000). The distribution of
teachers among California’s school districts and schools (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Cartledge, G., Singh, A., & Gibson, L. (2008). Practical behavior-management
techniques to close the accessibility gap for students who are culturally and
linguistically diverse. Preventing School Failure, 52(3), 29–39.

Cassidy, J., Hossler, A. (1992). State and federal definitions of the gifted: An update.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 46-53.

Castaneda, A., & Gray, T. (1974). Bicognitive processes in multicultural education.
Education Leadership, 32, 203-207.

Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor Black children
succeed or fail. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cline, S., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Diverse populations of gifted children: Meeting their
needs in the regular classroom and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.

Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students
from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275.

107

Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J. J., & Foster, A. (1994). Update report on state policies
related to the identification of gifted students. Chapel Hill: Gifted Education
Policy Studies Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Cox, J., & Daniel, N. (1983). The Richardson survey concludes. Gifted Child Today,
16(2), 103–119.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin: University of
Texas Press.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Culross, R. J. (1997). Conceptions of inclusion in gifted education. Teaching Exceptional
Children. Council for Exceptional Children, 22-26.

Dance, L. J. (2002). Tough fronts: The impact of street culture on schooling. New
York: Routledge.

Daniels, V. (1998). Minority students in gifted and special education programs; The case
of educational equity. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 41–44.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: Free Press.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Downey, D., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters; teachers’ evaluations of students’
classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267–283.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 23, 5-22.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1990). Research on the learning style characteristics of
selected racial and ethnic groups. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6,
261–280.

Durodoye, B., & Hildreth, B. (1995). Learning styles and the African American student.
Education, 116(2), 241–255.

www.ed.gov (2012). U. S. Department of Education.

108

Elhoweris, H. (2008). Teacher judgment in identifying gifted/talented students.
Multicultural Education, 15(3), 35–39.

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.

Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flowers, L., Zhang, Y., Moore, J., & Flowers, T. (2004). An exploratory
phenomenological study of African American high school students in gifted
education programs: Implications for teachers and school counselors. Teaching &
Learning in Diverse Settings, 2(1), 39–53.

Ford, D. Y. (1994a). The recruitment and retention of African American students in gifted
education programs: Implications and recommendations (Research Monograph
No. 9406). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
University of Connecticut.

Ford, D. Y. (1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. The Journal of Negro
Education, 64(1), 52–65.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising
practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education:
Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special
Education, 32(1), 4–15.

Ford, D., Grantham, T., & Harris, J. (1996). Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup
call to the profession. Roeper Review, 19, 72–78.

Ford, D., & Harris, J. (1999). Promoting achievement among gifted black students: The
efficacy of new definitions and identification practices. Urban Education, 29,
202–229.

Ford, D., & Harris, J. (2000). A framework for infusing multicultural curriculum into
gifted education. Roeper Review, 23(1), 4–11.

Ford, D., Harris, J., Tyson, C., & Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking: Providing
access for gifted african american students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52–58.

109

Ford, D., & Webb, K. (1994). Desegregation of gifted education programs: The impact of
Brown on underachieving children of color. The Journal of Negro Education,
63(3), 358–375.

Frasier, M. M. (1980). Programming for the culturally diverse. In J. B. Jordan & J. A.
Grossi (Eds.), An administrator’s handbook on designing programs for the gifted
and talented (pp. 56-65). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black students: Developing new
perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10 (3), 155-180.

Frasier, M. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their
implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs, CT: National
Research Center of the Gifted Minority Students. Storrs, CT: National Research
on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent
potential (Monograph 94111). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Frey, A. (2002). Predictors of placement recommendations for children with behavioral
or emotional disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 126-136.

Frye, B., & Vogt, H. (2010). The causes of underrepresentation of African American
children in gifted programs and the need to address this problem through more
culturally responsive teaching practices in teacher education programs. Black
History Bulletin, 73(1), 11–18.

Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and
Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification
techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124–126.

Gallagher, J. (1994a). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and talented
students. In P. O. Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing
America’s talent. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Gallagher, J. (1995). Education of gifted students, a civil rights issue? Phi Delta Kappan,
76(5),408–410.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.

110
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Gibbs, J. T. (Ed.). (1988). Young, Black, and male in America: An endangered species.
Dover, MA: Auburn House.

Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research.
Educational Leadership, 38, 415–421.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Grantham, T. (2002). Straight talk on the issue of underrepresentation: An interview with
Dr. Mary M. Frasier. Roeper Review, 24, 50-51.

Grantham, T. (2004a). Multicultural mentoring to increase black male representation in
gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 232–246.

Grantham, T. (2004b). Rocky Jones: Case study of a high-achieving black male’s
motivation to participate in gifted classes. Roeper Review, 26(4), 208–215.

Griffin, N. S. (1995). Content validity and field-test results of Nebraska Starry Night
Observation Protocol. Unpublished manuscript. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Grossman, H. (1995). Special education in a diverse society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Guskin, S. L., Peng, C. J., & Simon, M. (1992). Do teachers react to ―multiple
intelligences?‖ Effects of teachers’ stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for
students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 32-
37.

Haar, J., Hall, G., Schoepp, P., & Smith, D. (2002). How teachers teach to students with
different learning styles. Clearing House, 75(3), 142–146.

Hadaway, N., & Marek-Schroer, M. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted
minority student. Roeper Review, 15, 73–77.

Hale-Benson, J. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Han, K., & Marvin, C. (2000). A five year follow-up study of the Nebraska project: Still
a long way to go…Roeper Review, 23(1), 25–33.

111
Harmon, D. (2002). They won’t teach me: The voices of gifted African American inner-
city students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 68–75.

Harris, J. J., & Ford, D. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted Black
students. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 3–18.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

High, M. H., & Udall, A. J. (1983). Teacher ratings of students in relation to ethnicity of
students and school ethnic balance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6,
154–166.

Hilliard, A. G., III. (1989, December). Cultural style in teaching and learning. Education
Digest, 20–23.

Hilliard, A. G., III. (1992). Behavioral style, culture, teaching and learning. Journal of
Negro Education, 61(3), 370–377.

Hoffman, B. (2006). In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted
education. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 75–77.

Hoge, R. D., & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the
identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 181–196.

Horng, E. (2009). Teacher tradeoffs: disentangling teachers’ preferences for working
conditions and student demographics. American Educational Research Journal,
46(3), 690–718.

Hunsaker, S. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying underserved
students; Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72–77.

Irvine, J. J. (1991). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and
prescriptions. New York: Praeger.

Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children
as a function of school levels. Psychology in the Schools, 8, 140–142.

Jenkins, M. D. (1936). A socio-psychological study of Negro children of superior
intelligence. Journal of Negro Education, 5, 175–190.

112
Jensen, M., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1974). Influence of mode of presentation, ethnicity, and
social class on teachers’ evaluation of students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 66, 540-547.

Johnsen, S. K., & Ryser, G. R. (1997). The validity of portfolios in predicting
performance in a gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20,
253–267.

Kanevsky, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of
giftedness and talent (pp. 283–296). Oxford. UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keulen, J. (1995). Why is there an overrepresentation of African Americans in special
education classes? College of Education Review, 7, 76-88.

Kirschenman, J., & Neckerman, K. (1991). ―We’d Love to Hire Them, But…The
Meaning of Race for Employers.‖ In Christopher Jencks and Paul Peterson (Eds.),
The urban underclass (pp. 203–32). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.

Kitano, M., & Kirby, D. (1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston: Little,
Brown.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn’t add up: African American students’ mathematics
achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 697–708.

Lee, V., & Burkham, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.

Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem;
needed changes and promising solutions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.

Maker. C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (Eds.). (1989). Defensible programs for cultural and
ethnic minorities (Critical Issues in Gifted Education, Vol. II). Austin, TX: PRO-
ED.

Masten, W. G. (1985). Identification of gifted minority students: Past research, future
directions. Roeper Review, 8 (2), 83-85.

113
Morris, E. W. (2005). From ―middle class‖ to ―trailer trash:‖ Teachers’ perceptions of
white students in a predominately minority school. Sociology of Education, 78(2),
99–122.

Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education. Roeper Review, 24,
59–62.

Morse, J., & Cole, W. (2002). Learning while black. Time Europe, 159, 1–4.

Mutua, N. K. (2001). Policied identities: Children with disabilities. Educational Studies,
32, 289-300.

Naglieri, J., & Ford, D. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted
classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. The Gifted Child Quarterly,
49(1), 29–36.

www.nagc.org (2012). National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC).

O’Connell, P. (1986). The state of the states gifted and talented education. Augusta, MN:
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher,
21 (8), 5-14.

Ormrod, J. E. (1985). Issues in the identification of gifted and talented students. Terns
Tech Journal of Education, 12 (2), 63-77.

Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent
potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18 (3),
198-202.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Patton, T. M. (1992). Assessment and identification of African American learners with
gifts and talents. Exceptional Children, 59(2), 150–159.

Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. S. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high school: A
comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300–304.

Pierce, R., Adams, C., Neumeister, K., Cassady, J., Dixon, F., & Cross, T. (2007).
Development of an identification procedure for a large urban school corporation:
Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted elementary students.
Roeper Review, 29(2), 113–119.

114
Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2
nd

ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Powell, T., & Siegle, D. (2000). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students.
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 13–15.

Prieto, A. G., & Zucker, S. H. (1981). Teacher perception of race as a factor in the
placement of behaviorally disordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 7, 34-38.

Reffel, J. A., & Reffel, J. M. (2004, April). Limited participation of low-SES and
minority children in gifted education programs. Poster session presented at the
annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, New Orleans, LA.

Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead.
Roeper Review, 18 (3), 173-178.

Reschly, D. J. (1988). Minority MMR overrepresentation and special education reform.
Exceptional Children, 54,316-323.

Richart, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted students: An update. Roeper Review, 8,
6872.

Robins, K. N., Lindsey, R. B., Lindsey, D. B., & Terrell, R. D. (2002). Culturally
proficient instruction: A guide for people who teach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.

Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent.
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform
to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute.

Saccuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Guerin, T. L. (1994). Identifying underrepresented
disadvantaged gifted and talented children: A multifaceted approach (Vols. 1 &
2). San Diego: San Diego State University.

Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and
Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 30–33.

Serwatka, T. S., Deering, S., & Stoddard, A. (1989). Correlates of the
underrepresentation of black students in classes for gifted students. Journal of
Negro Education, 58, 520530.

115
Shade, B. J. (1997). African-American cognitive patterns: A review of the research. In B.
J. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style, and the Educative Process: Making schools work
for racially diverse students. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Shaklee, B. D. (1992). Identification of young gifted students. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted. 15 IS (2), 734-144.

Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. A. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

Struck, J. (2003). A study of talent development in a predominantly low socioeconomic
and/or African American population. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Sue, W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2
nd

ed.). New York: Wiley.

Tomlinson, T. (1992). Issues in education. Hard work and high expectations: Motivating
students to learn. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.

Tonemah, S. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students’ abilities.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10 (3), 181-194.

Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creative positives of disadvantaged children and youth. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 13, 71-81.

Torrance, E. P. (1973, September). Emergent concepts concerning culturally different
gifted children. Paper presented at the Work Conference on the Culturally
Different Gifted Child, Rougemont, NC.

Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different.
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Torrance, C., Reynolds, R., Riegel, I., & Ball, O. (1977). Your style of learning and
thinking. Gifted Quarterly, 2, 563–573.

Tuttle, F. B., Jr., Becker, L. A., & Sousa, J. A. (1988). Characteristics and identification
of gifted and talented students (3
rd
ed.). Washington, DC: National Education
Association.

116
Tyson, K. (2003). Notes from the back of the room: Problems and paradoxes in the
schooling of young black students. Sociology of Education, 76(4), 326.

U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing
America’s talent. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education (1994). Javits gifted and talented students education
program. (Grants Projects Abstracts, 1992-1993). Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of
Practice.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Elementary and secondary civil rights survey.
(1998). Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education (2009). The condition of education 2009. Washington,
DC: Author.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Patton, J., & Prillaman, D. (1989). Disadvantaged gifted learners at-
risk for educational attention. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22(3), 1–16.

Weber, P. (1999). Mental models and the identification of young gifted students: A tale
of two boys. Roeper Review, 21, 183–188.

West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9, 8–37.

Winfield, L. F. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at risk students in inner
urban schools. The Urban Review, 18, 253–268.

Woods, S. B., & Achey, V. H. (1990). Successful identification of gifted racial/ethnic
groups students without changing classification requirements. Roeper Review, 13,
21–26.

Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (1998). The first days of school. Mountain View, CA: Harry
K. Wong Publications.

Young, C., Wright, J., & Laster, J. (2005). Instructing African American students.
Education, 125(3), 516–524.

Zucker, S. H., & Prieto, A. G. (1977). Ethnicity and teacher bias in educational
decisions. Instructional Psychology, 4, 2-6.

117
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTORY EMAIL
Dear Principal,

Hello! My name is ReNaé Calloway and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am currently working on my
dissertation and seeking out possible sites to conduct my data collection for my research
study. I am writing this email to explain the nature of my dissertation and ask for
permission to include your school in my research study.

I am in my third year of the Ed.D. Program at USC pursuing a concentration in Teacher
Education in Multicultural Societies with a specialization in Urban Teacher Education. I
am part of a thematic dissertation group under the supervision of Dr. Sandra Kaplan. Our
overarching topic focuses on gifted education with each group member pursuing a
particular facet of interest. After reading some of the current research on gifted education,
I became intrigued about teacher perceptions of gifted children. I have chosen to research
the factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as
potentially gifted learners. I decided to focus on this particular group of students because
they are underrepresented in gifted programs throughout the United States.

My plan is to conduct my research throughout four counties here is Southern California.
My investigative tool will be a survey of approximately 32 forced choice questions to be
given to elementary school teachers. The survey should take about 15-20 minutes to
complete. To make it easier for participating teachers, I could administer and collect the
survey from your staff at a convenient time to alleviate the time of using the mail system.
If you would be interested in having your staff participate in this research, I can meet
with you to provide a more detailed explanation about my study and to coordinate an
appropriate day and time to give the survey to your staff.

I hope that you will consider this endeavor and I welcome the opportunity of working
with your school. I can be reached by email at shropshi@usc.edu or by telephone at (661)
257-9035. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.

Sincerely,
ReNaé Calloway

118
APPENDIX B
GATE IDENTIFICATION SURVEY (GIS)

Dear Educator,

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California where I am currently
working on a dissertation research study to better understand the factors that influence the
identification of elementary African American students as gifted learners. Thank you for
agreeing to complete the following survey. Please allow 15-20 minutes to answer all
questions, front and back. Your responses will be incorporated into this study and I am
very interested in your input. This survey is anonymous so please do not write any
identifying information on this packet.

Sincerely,

ReNaé Calloway

GATE Identification Survey
(GIS)

Part I (Please check one answer for questions 1 - 5).

1. I am:
_____ male
_____ female

2. I work at a school that is:
_____ rural
_____ suburban
_____ urban

119
3. The grade level I currently teach is:
_____K
_____ 1
st

_____ 2
nd

_____ 3
rd

_____ 4
th

_____ 5
th

4. I have been teaching for:
_____ 1 to 5 years
_____ 6 to 10 years
_____ 11 to 15 years
_____ 16 to 20 years
_____ 21+

5. Which of the following best describes you?
_____ White, not Hispanic
_____ Black, not Hispanic
_____ Hispanic
_____ Asian/Pacific Islander
_____ Alaskan Native or Native American, not Hispanic
_____ Other, Specify _____________________________

6. What are the ethnic backgrounds of the students in your current classroom?
(Please fill in a number for each group)
_____ students are White, not Hispanic
_____ students are Black, not Hispanic
_____ students are Hispanic
_____ students are Asian/Pacific Islander
_____ students are Alaskan Native or Native American, not Hispanic
_____ students are Other, Specify _____________________________
There are _____ students total in my current classroom.

7. How many students in your classroom are identified as gifted and talented? _____

120
Part II (Please check one answer for each question).

8. To what degree do you believe the following instructional strategies are important
in order to recognize African American students as potentially gifted learners?

Most of
the time
Some of
the time

Rarely

Never
Peer Teaching
Demonstrations
Oral Presentations
Role Playing
Brainstorming
Acceleration
Cluster Grouping
Compacting the Curriculum
Cooperative Learning
Differentiated Curriculum
Direct Instruction
Independent Study

Read questions 9-16 describing the learning behaviors of African American
students. Indicate the degree to which you agree with these statements.
Please check one answer for each question.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
9. Generally, African American
students learn better in loosely
structured environments.

10. African American students focus
better on general concepts.

11. African American students focus
better on the whole rather than on the
parts that make up the whole.

12. African American students
demonstrate a preference for working
with other students more than with
things in order to learn a concept.

13. African American students prefer
cooperative learning rather than
independent and competitive
learning.

121
14. African American students value
oral communication.

15. African American students
benefit from creative and active
environments that promote higher-
order thinking skills.

16. African American students prefer
to learn content through self-
expression in visual, dramatic, and
musical arts.

Please check one answer for each question.

17. How often would you consider the following familial traits when nominating an
African American student for gifted education?

Most of
the time
Some of
the time

Rarely

Never
Comes from a single parent home
Has or had a parent incarcerated
Lives in foster care
Family History of substance abuse
Family on public assistance

Please check one answer for each question.

18. To what degree do you consider the following characteristics when nominating an
African American student for gifted education?

Most of
the time
Some of
the time

Rarely

Never
Misbehaves in class
Constant use of slang
Always late for school

122
19. To what degree do you consider the following physical attributes when
nominating an African American student for gifted education?

Most of
the time
Some of
the time

Rarely

Never
Comes to school hungry
Clothes are unkempt
Comes to school dirty

Most of
the time
Some of
the time

Rarely

Never
20. To what degree do your educational
materials in the classroom include
multicultural perspectives by portraying
diverse role models?

21. To what extent do your bulletin boards
reflect a variety of ethnic groups?

22. To what degree do you believe an
interdisciplinary unit involving the creative
arts is important to teaching African
American students?

23. To what extent does your classroom
provide opportunities for diverse interaction
patterns, with students working at desks,
moving around the room, and asking each
other questions as well as you, the teacher?

24. To what extent do you encourage
African American students to deal with
social issues by using conflict resolution
activities?

25. To what extent do you teach a subject
matter area or topic by discussing the
contributions of African Americans?

26. To what extent do you make a point of
offering praise and encouragement to
African American learners?

Read questions 27-32 describing scenarios about different students. Please check
one answer for each question indicating whether or not you would identify each
student as a potentially gifted learner.

123
27. Shaun always asks questions about the topic the teacher is presenting in a lesson.
He often has a second question to ask before the teacher even completes the
answer to the first question. He usually raises his hand and jumps up and down at
the same time as he raises his hand. In fact, he seldom has his complete body in
the chair assigned to him.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

28. Maggie is very quiet and thoughtful during the science unit on the environment
and she always gets the right answers on the test. However, she is hesitant to
participate actively. She states that she has never seen the ocean, forest, or desert
and she has never been to a museum. ―I don’t go places,‖ she says.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

29. Peter usually solves a problem in class by using a method that is different from
the other students in class. He likes to experiment and improvise with different
ways to figure out a problem instead of using the most common method to find
the answer. He usually works alone because the other students avoid being around
him since he comes to school dirty most of the time.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

30. Susan has a great sense of humor and she usually includes other classmates in her
desire to point out the lighter side of a situation. She blurts out in class many
times to tell the rest of the class about a funny situation. She is usually ―in
trouble‖ for misbehaving in class.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

124
31. Sherry lives alone with her father because he mother is in jail. She comes to
school late many mornings so she has to go to class hungry because she missed
breakfast at the school cafeteria. She loves to read and has an extensive
vocabulary even though she constantly uses slang in the classroom. She is a high
achiever in most subject areas.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

32. Tom lives in foster care because both of his parents have a history of substance
abuse. He is very self-motivated and enjoys expressing his thoughts through the
songs he makes up and sings during class time. He always volunteers to
participate during role playing activities.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

125
APPENDIX C

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE FORM

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
WPH 800
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Factors that Influence the Identification of Elementary African American
Students as Potentially Gifted Learners

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Sandra N. Kaplan, Ed.D.
and ReNaé Calloway, M.Ed., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are considered to be vital to the study, which is a
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because
you are an elementary school teacher in K-6. Up to 1000 elementary school teachers will
be selected to participate. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This investigation seeks to understand why African American students are not equally
represented in gifted and talented programs. Students with gifted and talented
exceptionalities come from all cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this
research study.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to complete a survey that
should take between 15-20 minutes to complete. The survey consists of 32 forced-choice
questions. An example question is:

Maggie is very quiet and thoughtful during the science unit on the environment and she
always gets the right answers on the test. However, she is hesitant to participate actively.
She states that she has never seen the ocean, forest, or desert and she has never been to a
museum. ―I don’t go places,‖ she says.

______ I would identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.

126
______ I would not identify this student as a potentially gifted learner.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated benefits to your participation. You do not have to complete any
questions which may make you feel uncomfortable.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from your participation in this research study.

It is hoped that an examination of perceptions can produce an awareness of values,
beliefs, and practices that could affect the type and quality of learning experiences for
gifted African American students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment or compensation for participating in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can be identified
with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you will not be
collected during this research study.

All data will be kept in the investigator’s home office and no one will have access to this
information. All data will be kept for three years after the study and then it will be
destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
ReNaé Calloway by email at shropshi@usc.edu or by telephone at
661-257-9035 or by mail at 6742 East Avenue H, Lancaster, CA 93535.
Dr. Sandra Kaplan can be reached by email at skaplan@usc.edu or by telephone at 213-
740-3291 or by mail at the University of Southern California, Rossier School of
Education, WPH 1002C, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

127
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.

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, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative and answered
all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information described in
this document and freely consents to participate.

ReNaé Calloway

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)

128
APPENDIX D

RESEARCH/SURVEY QUESTION MATRIX

Research Questions

Survey Questions

Demographics

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

1.
How does a teacher’s perception of
elementary African American students affect
their identification as potentially gifted
learners?

17, 18, 19, 26

2.
How does a teacher’s knowledge of
learning styles of elementary African
American students affect the teacher’s
recognition of these students as potentially
gifted learners?

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

3.
What is the relationship between a teacher’s
utilization of various instructional
strategies and the teacher’s awareness of
elementary African American students as
potentially gifted learners?

8, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Scenarios

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

129
APPENDIX E

PILOT STUDY FINDINGS

q1
Gender
Frequency %
Male 3 30.0
Female 7 70.0
Total 10 100.0

q2
School Location
Frequency %
Rural 9 90.0
Suburban 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q3
Grade level I Currently Teach
Frequency %
K 1 10.0
3rd grade 3 30.0
4th grade 2 20.0
5th grade 3 30.0
Mixed grades 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q4
Years Teaching
Frequency %
1 to 5 years 4 40.0
6 to 10 years 4 40.0
11 to 15 years 1 10.0
21+ years 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q5

130
Ethnicity of Teacher
Frequency %
White 9 90.0
Black 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_1
Ethnicity of Students - # of White
Frequency %
2 1 10.0
3 1 10.0
4 3 30.0
5 1 10.0
7 1 10.0
8 1 10.0
9 1 10.0
10 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_2
Ethnicity of Students - # of Black
Frequency %
3 4 40.0
4 3 30.0
5 2 20.0
7 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_3
Ethnicity of Students - # of Hispanic
Frequency %
11 1 10.0
12 2 20.0
13 2 20.0
15 3 30.0
16 1 10.0
18 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

131
q6_4
Ethnicity of Students - # of Asian/Pacific Islander
Frequency %
0 8 80.0
1 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_5
Ethnicity of Students - # of Alaskan Native/Native American
Frequency %
0 10 100.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_6
Ethnicity of Students - # of Other
Frequency %
0 10 100.0
Total 10 100.0

q6_7
Total # of Students
Frequency %
20 5 50.0
24 1 10.0
28 2 20.0
29 1 10.0
30 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q7
# of Students in Class Identified as Gifted/Talented
Frequency %
0 4 40.0
2 3 30.0
38 2 20.0
49 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

132
q8_1
Instructional Strategy: Peer Teaching
Frequency %
Some of the time 6 60.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_2
Instructional Strategy: Demonstrations
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 8 80.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_3
Instructional Strategy: Oral Presentations
Frequency %
Most of the time 1 10.0
Some of the time 9 90.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_4
Instructional Strategy: Role Playing
Frequency %
Some of the time 5 50.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_5
Instructional Strategy: Brainstorming
Frequency %
Most of the time 1 10.0
Some of the time 9 90.0
Total 10 100.0

133
q8_6
Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Acceleration
Frequency %
Most of the time 1 10.0
Some of the time 5 50.0
Rarely 3 30.0
Never 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_7
Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Cluster Grouping
Frequency %
Most of the time 1 10.0
Some of the time 8 80.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_8
Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Compacting the Curriculum
Frequency %
Some of the time 7 70.0
Rarely 3 30.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_9
Instructional Strategy: Cooperative Learning
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 7 70.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_10
Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Differentiated Curriculum
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 5 50.0
Rarely 3 30.0
Total 10 100.0

134
q8_11
Instructional Strategy: Direct Instruction
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 8 80.0
Total 10 100.0

q8_12
Differentiated Curriculum Strategy: Independent Study
Frequency %
Some of the time 5 50.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Total 10 100.0

q9
Learning Style: Loosely Structured Environments
Frequency %
Agree 1 10.0
Disagree 9 90.0
Total 10 100.0

q10
Learning Style: General Concepts
Frequency %
Agree 2 20.0
Disagree 8 80.0
Total 10 100.0

q11
Learning Style: Focus on the Whole
Frequency %
Agree 1 10.0
Disagree 9 90.0
Total 10 100.0

135
q12
Learning Style: Working with Other Students
Frequency %
Agree 3 30.0
Disagree 7 70.0
Total 10 100.0

q13
Learning Style: Preference for Cooperative Learning
Frequency %
Agree 4 40.0
Disagree 6 60.0
Total 10 100.0

q14
Learning Style: Oral Communication
Frequency %
Agree 5 50.0
Disagree 5 50.0
Total 10 100.0

q15
Learning Style: Creative and Active Environments
Frequency %
Strongly Agree 1 10.0
Agree 5 50.0
Disagree 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q16
Learning Style: Self-Expression
Frequency %
Agree 4 40.0
Disagree 6 60.0
Total 10 100.0

136
q17_1
Familial Trait: Single Parent Home
Frequency %
Some of the time 3 30.0
Rarely 3 30.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q17_2
Familial Trait: Parent Incarcerated
Frequency %
Some of the time 2 20.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q17_3
Familial Trait: Lives in Foster Care
Frequency %
Some of the time 2 20.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q17_4
Familial Trait: History of Substance Abuse
Frequency %
Some of the time 2 20.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q17_5
Familial Trait: Public Assistance
Frequency %
Some of the time 3 30.0
Rarely 3 30.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

137
q18_1
Behavioral Characteristic: Misbehaves in Class
Frequency %
Some of the time 2 20.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q18_2
Behavioral Characteristic: Constant Use of Slang
Frequency %
Some of the time 1 10.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q18_3
Behavioral Characteristic: Always Late for School
Frequency %
Some of the time 1 10.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q19_1
Physical Attribute: Comes to School Hungry
Frequency %
Some of the time 2 20.0
Rarely 4 40.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q19_2
Physical Attribute: Clothes are Unkempt
Frequency %
Some of the time 1 10.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

138
q19_3
Physical Attribute: Comes to School Dirty
Frequency %
Some of the time 1 10.0
Rarely 5 50.0
Never 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

q20
Educational Materials: Multicultural Perspectives
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 7 70.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q21
Educational Materials: Bulletin Boards
Frequency %
Most of the time 4 40.0
Some of the time 4 40.0
Rarely 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0

q22
Curriculum Strategy: Involving Creative Arts
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 6 60.0
Rarely 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0

q23
Instructional Strategy: Diverse Interaction Patterns
Frequency %
Some of the time 9 90.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

139
q24
Curriculum Strategy: Using Conflict Resolution
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 7 70.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q25
Curriculum Strategy: Contributions of AA
Frequency %
Some of the time 9 90.0
Rarely 1 10.0
Total 10 100.0

q26
Teacher Behavior: Offering Praise and Encouragement
Frequency %
Most of the time 2 20.0
Some of the time 8 80.0
Total 10 100.0

q27
Scenario with Shaun
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 5 50.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 5 50.0
Total 10 100.0

q28
Scenario with Maggie
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 7 70.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 3 30.0
Total 10 100.0

140
q29
Scenario with Peter
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 8 80.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0

q30
Scenario with Susan
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 5 50.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 5 50.0
Total 10 100.0

q31
Scenario with Sherry
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 8 80.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 2 20.0
Total 10 100.0

q32
Scenario with Tom
Frequency %
Would identify as gifted 6 60.0
Would NOT identify as gifted 4 40.0
Total 10 100.0

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to examine factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students for gifted programs and to discover why these students are not equally represented. Concerns over recruiting and retaining Black students in gifted education programs have continued for several decades. ❧ This study was guided by a quantitative design through the use of a survey to gather the data about teachers’ perceptions, knowledge of learning styles, and utilization of various instructional strategies. The sample consisted of 40 elementary school teachers from ethnically diverse schools located in three counties of southern California. The survey asked both demographic and close-ended questions that related to the influential factors mentioned in the research questions. A survey design provided a numerical analysis of teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about identifying elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners. Responses were coded and tabulated in order to classify the factors that influenced the identification process for gifted programs. ❧ The major findings showed that teachers’ perceptions of African American students with regard to familial traits, behavioral characteristics, and physical appearance would rarely or never influence their consideration for gifted programs. The majority of the teachers felt they offered praise and encouragement to the African American students in their classrooms. The data exposed that the teachers’ knowledge of learning styles was not evident because the majority of the teachers did not feel African American students learned in the ways described in the statements of the survey questions. The surveyed items revealed that the majority of the teachers used instructional and differentiated curriculum strategies in their classrooms. Most teachers felt their classrooms portrayed diverse role models through educational materials.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

The under-referral of African American boys to gifted programs

PDF

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help from the writing center?

PDF

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

PDF

Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students