There is no consensus on what intelligence means. Some experts define intelligence
as problem-solving ability. Others describe it as the ability to adapt to and learn from
life’s everyday experiences. Still others believe that intelligence is the ability to think
in the abstract (Sattler, 2001). The concept of intelligence has been discussed since the
ancient Greeks. However, its scientific study started with the work of Alfred Binet, who
was asked by the French government to develop a measure that could identify children
with special education needs. Binet devised the first intelligence test, which yields an
overall intelligence quotient (IQ), a global index of people’s intelligence, plus individual
scores on ability subtests (e.g., memory, spatial ability, vocabulary). In Chapter 13,
we discuss the most common individual and group tests of intelligence, which are considered
to be general aptitude tests for school learning.
Single-Trait Intelligence Theory. One of the biggest problems in defining intelligence
arises when experts are asked whether intelligence is a general aptitude. Binet’s work
began to establish the idea that intelligence is a general trait. Likewise, Charles
Spearman (1927) believed that intelligence is a single trait that people have in varying
degrees. Spearman called this trait general intelligence, or g. Although various
intelligent tests yield somewhat different scores, research supports the single-trait
theory of intelligence by showing that scores in all subtests tend to be correlated
(Brody, 2007; Carroll, 1993). However, Cattell (1987) found that general intelligence
is better understood by distinguishing two components: fluid intelligence, the ability
to reason and process information quickly, and crystallized intelligence, the knowledge
and skills acquired by learning and experience. General intelligence test scores
are strong predictors of academic achievement and moderately predict work performance
(Lubinski, 2000). More recently, theorists have developed multitrait theories
of intelligence. We discuss two of the most common theories next.
Gardner’sMultiple Intelligences Theory. After analyzing people’s performance in several
domains, Howard Gardner (1983) concluded that there are eight different types
of human intelligence. Table 2.4 lists each one with its corresponding definition. The
attractiveness of Gardner’s theory is that it makes intuitive sense because we all have
experience with people (including ourselves) being better at some skills than others.
On the other hand, there are serious criticisms of Gardner’s theory. First, experts
note that the research base to support the theory is not yet developed. Second, the
intelligence types proposed seem arbitrary. Why eight intelligences? Gardner (1999)
himself has later added a ninth, existential type of intelligence. And what is the evidence
in support of the idea that these intelligences are independent? For instance,
spatial and logical-mathematical abilities are strongly correlated (Sattler, 2001). Until
these questions are answered, Gardner’s theory is not likely to be accepted within the
scientific community. Educators, on the other hand, have embraced the theory, presumably
because one of its implications is that by using a variety of instructional methods,
teachers can capitalize on students’ diverse abilities (Gardner, 2000). A similar
phenomenon occurs with the theory of emotional intelligence, which is defined as the ability to effectively recognize and manage our own emotions and those of others
(Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Cobb, 2000). Despite its intuitive appeal, it is not clear
whether emotional intelligence is a distinct type of intelligence, a personality trait,
or just general intelligence applied to a particular domain: social relationships
(Eysenck, 1998; Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005).
Sternberg’s Triarchic Intelligence Theory. Robert Sternberg (2003), another multitrait
theorist, suggests that intelligence is made up of three dimensions—hence the
name, triarchic intelligence:
1. An analytical dimension, which is the ability to think abstractly and process information,
similar to more traditional intelligence definitions
2. A creative dimension, which involves the ability to deal with novel situations effectively
by turning new solutions into automatic processes that require little cognitive
effort
3. A practical dimension, which is the ability to deal with everyday tasks, including
adapting to the environment and/or changing the environment
Sternberg believes that people’s intelligence can be enhanced by providing them
with opportunities to think analytically, creatively, and practically. Similar to Gardner’s
theory, there is no strong research support for Sternberg’s triarchic theory to date.
Experts have argued that the vagueness of the theory makes it difficult to be empirically
tested (Sattler, 2001; Siegler, 1998).
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
How Gender Bias Affects Students
The general agreement among experts is that gender differences in achievement are the result of the gender bias in the home and school environments (Meece & Scantlebury, 2006). First, although
there is more acceptance of similarities in male and female behavior in the United States, many other cultures instill dramatic gender-specific roles. For instance, in many Middle Eastern countries,
females are socialized to remain in the private world of home and child rearing, and recent research indicates that Latino girls are subject to greater restrictions about getting involved in after-school activities
and job seeking (Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). Research finds that, on average, parents have higher expectations in math and science for their sons than for their daughters and are more likely to believe that boys have more
talent for careers in math and science than girls (Eccles et al., 1993). Not surprisingly, a
higher percentage of boys enroll in physics and engineering courses and earn bachelor’s
degrees in computer and information sciences, physical and biological sciences, engineering,
and mathematics (Bae et al., 2000). Textbooks are also gender biased in that they
show males more often than females as role models in history and science (Eisenberg,
Martin, & Fabes, et al., 1996), and female peers are likely to ridicule or shun classmates
who enroll or excel in math and science classes (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Teachers may also subtly affect the gender-role expectations of their students
(Garrahy, 2001; N. Lopez, 2003). For instance, there is evidence that teachers spend
more academic time with boys in mathematics and with girls in reading (Altermatt et
al., 1998) and that boys are more likely than girls to be criticized and identified as having
learning problems (Sadker & Sadker, 2005).
In conclusion, the differential treatment of boys and girls at home and in the classroom
can have a strong impact on students’ identity and academic development. Thus,
as reflective practitioners, teachers should make special efforts to think about their
expectations and biases to ensure equal treatment of both sexes. Although boys and
girls have distinctive characteristics, teachers need to make sure that they give them
the same academic opportunities and encouragement. Here are some of the questions
you can ask yourself to help prevent gender bias in your classroom:
• Do I call on boys and girls equally?
• Do boys and girls equally share classroom chores?
• Do I have equal expectations for boys and girls?
• Do I provide equal opportunities for boys’ and girls’ engagement and development
Additional strategies to reduce gender bias in the classroom are to critically examine
texts and instructional materials and ensure that there are female and male models
in all academic domains, bring to the classroom men and women who are successful
and happy in nonstereotypical professions and careers, and make students aware of gender
bias by communicating openly about gender issues.
How do teachers determine what each one of their students is capable of achieving?
What characteristics do they focus on to teach each child to his/her fullest potential?
In this section we discuss student characteristics that have been traditionally classified
as individual differences. Similar to the gender differences discussed before, individual
differences are typically the result of a combination of nature and nurture factors.
Due to the significant role that the environment can have on students’ thinking and
behavior, we discuss many ways in which teachers can accommodate individual differences
to promote academic success.
there is more acceptance of similarities in male and female behavior in the United States, many other cultures instill dramatic gender-specific roles. For instance, in many Middle Eastern countries,
females are socialized to remain in the private world of home and child rearing, and recent research indicates that Latino girls are subject to greater restrictions about getting involved in after-school activities
and job seeking (Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). Research finds that, on average, parents have higher expectations in math and science for their sons than for their daughters and are more likely to believe that boys have more
talent for careers in math and science than girls (Eccles et al., 1993). Not surprisingly, a
higher percentage of boys enroll in physics and engineering courses and earn bachelor’s
degrees in computer and information sciences, physical and biological sciences, engineering,
and mathematics (Bae et al., 2000). Textbooks are also gender biased in that they
show males more often than females as role models in history and science (Eisenberg,
Martin, & Fabes, et al., 1996), and female peers are likely to ridicule or shun classmates
who enroll or excel in math and science classes (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Teachers may also subtly affect the gender-role expectations of their students
(Garrahy, 2001; N. Lopez, 2003). For instance, there is evidence that teachers spend
more academic time with boys in mathematics and with girls in reading (Altermatt et
al., 1998) and that boys are more likely than girls to be criticized and identified as having
learning problems (Sadker & Sadker, 2005).
In conclusion, the differential treatment of boys and girls at home and in the classroom
can have a strong impact on students’ identity and academic development. Thus,
as reflective practitioners, teachers should make special efforts to think about their
expectations and biases to ensure equal treatment of both sexes. Although boys and
girls have distinctive characteristics, teachers need to make sure that they give them
the same academic opportunities and encouragement. Here are some of the questions
you can ask yourself to help prevent gender bias in your classroom:
• Do I call on boys and girls equally?
• Do boys and girls equally share classroom chores?
• Do I have equal expectations for boys and girls?
• Do I provide equal opportunities for boys’ and girls’ engagement and development
Additional strategies to reduce gender bias in the classroom are to critically examine
texts and instructional materials and ensure that there are female and male models
in all academic domains, bring to the classroom men and women who are successful
and happy in nonstereotypical professions and careers, and make students aware of gender
bias by communicating openly about gender issues.
How do teachers determine what each one of their students is capable of achieving?
What characteristics do they focus on to teach each child to his/her fullest potential?
In this section we discuss student characteristics that have been traditionally classified
as individual differences. Similar to the gender differences discussed before, individual
differences are typically the result of a combination of nature and nurture factors.
Due to the significant role that the environment can have on students’ thinking and
behavior, we discuss many ways in which teachers can accommodate individual differences
to promote academic success.
Gender Differences in the Classroom
The strong evidence in favor of both nature and nurture as sources of gender differences has led most experts to conclude that they are the result of the interaction between genetics and the environment (Jones & Dindia, 2004; Lippa, 2002). Regardless of their origin, teachers should understand what is known about gender differences that may have an impact in the classroom.
Emotions and Behavior. In general, girls are more sociable and trusting but have lower
assertiveness and self-esteem than boys of their same background and age (Halpern &
LaMay, 2000). Girls also report more intense emotions than boys; yet females are better
able to self-regulate their emotions and behavior than males (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Smith,
2004). Females engage in more prosocial behaviors than males, such as demonstrating
kindness, empathy, and consideration for others (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). In
the classroom, males are more likely to participate in learning activities, ask questions, and
be verbally aggressive than females (Altermatt, Jovanovic, & Perry, 1998; Brophy, 2004).
Across cultures and from a very early age, boys are also more likely to be physically aggressive
than girls (Ostrov, Keating, & Ostrov, 2004). This difference can be partially accounted
for by males’ hormonal makeup and partly by social expectations; it is reflected in boys’
higher tendency to engage in bullying, rough play, competitive games, and risk-taking physical
activities (Lippa, 2002; Maccoby, 2002; Pellegrini, Kato, Blatchford, & Baines, 2002).
Males are also less likely to read for pleasure, do homework, take college preparatory
classes, and complete high school than females and more likely to skip class, hold parttime
jobs out of school, and drop out of school than females (NCES, 2001; Riordan, 1996).
Physical Performance. From a very young age, boys are more active than girls.
Therefore, in the classroom, boys have a greater tendency to not pay attention, move
around the room, and pose discipline problems (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).
Although before puberty boys and girls have similar potential for physical and motor
growth, girls show a slight advantage on fine motor skills. Puberty results in increased muscle mass for boys and increased body fat for girls, leading to an advantage for males
in activities that require strength. In the middle school years, males outperform females
in athletic activities such as running, throwing, and jumping (Smoll & Schutz, 1990).
Technology Use. According to a national survey of kindergarten through sixth-grade
students, males and females reported having equal access to computers at home and
school (Bae, Choy, Geddes, Sable, & Snyder, 2000). Gender differences, however, exist
for the ways in which computers are used. Whereas females are more likely to use computers
for word processing, graphics design, and educational applications, males favor
the use of computers for playing games (Libsch & Breslow, 2000). A computer technology
gap seems to appear during the teenage years, with females reporting less favorable
perceptions of computer-based instruction than males (Martin, Heller, &
Mahmoud, 1992; Proost, Elen, & Lowyck, 1997).
Cognitive Abilities. Although a large number of studies have found no gender differences
in intelligence, certain differences are found when examining different abilities
within intelligence tests (Flynn, 1998; Halpern, 2000; Mackintosh, 1996). On
average, females score higher than males on tests of verbal ability, such as those assessing
reading, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and comprehension (Hyde & Mckinley,
1997; Smedler & Torestad, 1996). In contrast, on average, males score higher than
females on tests of visuospatial abilities, such as tasks where they are required to mentally
rotate objects, judge the velocity of moving objects, track movement through
three-dimensional space, and aim at a moving or stationary target (Gurian & Stevens,
2005; Halpern, 2004; Nordvik & Amponsah, 1998; Ruble et al., 2006).
Achievement. Females have higher reading and writing achievement than males in grades
4, 8, and 12 (Coley, 2001; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2002, 2005). This
difference is also consistently found in international studies of reading literacy such as
PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, &
Kennedy, 2003: NCES, 2002). In math achievement, the picture is not so clear. Males tend
to outperform females on standardized achievement tests, but girls tend to get higher math
grades at school than boys (Halpern, 2000). However, no gender differences on math
achievement are found among Asian-American students (Yee, 1992). An additional finding
of interest is that the math scores of boys are more variable than those of girls, with
boys having very high and very low scores on tests (Willingham & Cole, 1997). Unlike reading
literacy, international studies on math achievement do not show consistent results. Only
7 out of the 33 countries that participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) showed significant achievement differences in favor of
eighth-grade boys (Halpern, 2004). In science, a recent national study showed that
males outperform females in grades 4, 8, and 12 (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 2005). A similar finding was found in another study of
eighth- and tenth-graders (Burkham, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997) and in 22 out of the 33
countries that participated in the TIMSS (Halpern, 2004). In terms of students’
self-efficacy (sense of competency), girls and boys report similar self-efficacy in
math and science up to middle school, yet, by the twelfth grade, females feel significantly
less confident about their math skills than boys (see Figure 2.7) (Bae et al.,
2000; Jovanovic & King, 1998). Despite the noted findings, experts have pointed out that gender differences in achievement seem to be getting smaller (Halpern, 2000; Hyde, 2005; Spelke, 2005). Therefore, teachers
should not have different expectations for girls and boys for different subject areas.
Emotions and Behavior. In general, girls are more sociable and trusting but have lower
assertiveness and self-esteem than boys of their same background and age (Halpern &
LaMay, 2000). Girls also report more intense emotions than boys; yet females are better
able to self-regulate their emotions and behavior than males (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Smith,
2004). Females engage in more prosocial behaviors than males, such as demonstrating
kindness, empathy, and consideration for others (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). In
the classroom, males are more likely to participate in learning activities, ask questions, and
be verbally aggressive than females (Altermatt, Jovanovic, & Perry, 1998; Brophy, 2004).
Across cultures and from a very early age, boys are also more likely to be physically aggressive
than girls (Ostrov, Keating, & Ostrov, 2004). This difference can be partially accounted
for by males’ hormonal makeup and partly by social expectations; it is reflected in boys’
higher tendency to engage in bullying, rough play, competitive games, and risk-taking physical
activities (Lippa, 2002; Maccoby, 2002; Pellegrini, Kato, Blatchford, & Baines, 2002).
Males are also less likely to read for pleasure, do homework, take college preparatory
classes, and complete high school than females and more likely to skip class, hold parttime
jobs out of school, and drop out of school than females (NCES, 2001; Riordan, 1996).
Physical Performance. From a very young age, boys are more active than girls.
Therefore, in the classroom, boys have a greater tendency to not pay attention, move
around the room, and pose discipline problems (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).
Although before puberty boys and girls have similar potential for physical and motor
growth, girls show a slight advantage on fine motor skills. Puberty results in increased muscle mass for boys and increased body fat for girls, leading to an advantage for males
in activities that require strength. In the middle school years, males outperform females
in athletic activities such as running, throwing, and jumping (Smoll & Schutz, 1990).
Technology Use. According to a national survey of kindergarten through sixth-grade
students, males and females reported having equal access to computers at home and
school (Bae, Choy, Geddes, Sable, & Snyder, 2000). Gender differences, however, exist
for the ways in which computers are used. Whereas females are more likely to use computers
for word processing, graphics design, and educational applications, males favor
the use of computers for playing games (Libsch & Breslow, 2000). A computer technology
gap seems to appear during the teenage years, with females reporting less favorable
perceptions of computer-based instruction than males (Martin, Heller, &
Mahmoud, 1992; Proost, Elen, & Lowyck, 1997).
Cognitive Abilities. Although a large number of studies have found no gender differences
in intelligence, certain differences are found when examining different abilities
within intelligence tests (Flynn, 1998; Halpern, 2000; Mackintosh, 1996). On
average, females score higher than males on tests of verbal ability, such as those assessing
reading, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and comprehension (Hyde & Mckinley,
1997; Smedler & Torestad, 1996). In contrast, on average, males score higher than
females on tests of visuospatial abilities, such as tasks where they are required to mentally
rotate objects, judge the velocity of moving objects, track movement through
three-dimensional space, and aim at a moving or stationary target (Gurian & Stevens,
2005; Halpern, 2004; Nordvik & Amponsah, 1998; Ruble et al., 2006).
Achievement. Females have higher reading and writing achievement than males in grades
4, 8, and 12 (Coley, 2001; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2002, 2005). This
difference is also consistently found in international studies of reading literacy such as
PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, &
Kennedy, 2003: NCES, 2002). In math achievement, the picture is not so clear. Males tend
to outperform females on standardized achievement tests, but girls tend to get higher math
grades at school than boys (Halpern, 2000). However, no gender differences on math
achievement are found among Asian-American students (Yee, 1992). An additional finding
of interest is that the math scores of boys are more variable than those of girls, with
boys having very high and very low scores on tests (Willingham & Cole, 1997). Unlike reading
literacy, international studies on math achievement do not show consistent results. Only
7 out of the 33 countries that participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) showed significant achievement differences in favor of
eighth-grade boys (Halpern, 2004). In science, a recent national study showed that
males outperform females in grades 4, 8, and 12 (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 2005). A similar finding was found in another study of
eighth- and tenth-graders (Burkham, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997) and in 22 out of the 33
countries that participated in the TIMSS (Halpern, 2004). In terms of students’
self-efficacy (sense of competency), girls and boys report similar self-efficacy in
math and science up to middle school, yet, by the twelfth grade, females feel significantly
less confident about their math skills than boys (see Figure 2.7) (Bae et al.,
2000; Jovanovic & King, 1998). Despite the noted findings, experts have pointed out that gender differences in achievement seem to be getting smaller (Halpern, 2000; Hyde, 2005; Spelke, 2005). Therefore, teachers
should not have different expectations for girls and boys for different subject areas.
Gender and Sex Diversity
A Few Definitions. In this section we discuss what is known about learning differences
between males and females. Let’s start by distinguishing between the word gender, which
refers to traits and behaviors that a particular culture believes to be appropriate for men
and women, and the word sex, which refers to the biological differences of men and women
(Brannon, 2002). Regardless of the age, culture, and many other differences among your
students, you will be confronted with both sex and gender differences. Sex differences are
almost always immediately obvious and controlled by nature. Gender differences instead
are psychologically and socially controlled differences related to how individuals express
their biological sex in their behavior. Gender bias occurs when a person has unjustified views
of female versus male competencies favoring one gender over the other.
Nature versus Nurture. There is much debate about the extent to which biological differences
(nature) and gender socialization (nurture) affect people’s behavior. There are physical
characteristics such as size and growth rate that can be explained by genetics (Berk,
2006). In addition, sex hormones affect the development of gender differences in the
brain. For example, testosterone affects the development of the right and left hemispheres
of the brain, with males exhibiting more lateralization of their brains than females
(Meinschaefer, Hausmann, & Guentuerkuen, 1999). Other evidence for the role of hormones
in gender differences comes from research on women’s change in abilities across
their menstrual cycle. Specifically, when female hormones are at their lowest, females do
better on tasks in which males are typically superior, (such as visuospatial ones), and when
female hormones are at their peak, females do better on tasks in which females typically
excel, such as verbal fluency (Hampson, 1990). However, males and females are mostly
indistinguishable in their brain anatomy. The two documented exceptions are that the
corpus callosum is larger in females than in males (LeDoux, 1996, 2002) and that the areas
of the brain involved in visuospatial processing are larger in males than in females
(Frederikse et al., 2000). Still, what is not clear is whether these brain differences are the
cause of the different behaviors that females and males display or their effect.
The case for nurture is supported by cross-cultural research, which shows that all societies engage in gender
socialization: teaching the behavior and attitudes considered appropriate for a given sex. All cultures have genderspecific roles and treat males and females differently in many respects; however, different societies display quite different gender roles (Feingold, 1992; Grossman & Grossman, 1994). Additional support comes from a sociocognitive theory of gender, which emphasizes the role that observation, imitation, rewards, and punishment play in children’s gender development. For instance, many parents
encourage different activities, traits, and toys for boys and girls (Brannon, 2002; Bronstein, 2006). Peers are also found to reward gender-appropriate and punish genderinappropriate behavior (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006), playing an important gender-socializing role. Finally, the media also shape gender roles by portraying females and males as having different traits or engaging in different activities
(Comstock & Scharrer, 2006; Pacheco & Hurtado, 2001). The role of gender socialization is illustrated in
Figure 2.6, which shows the responses of two fourth-graders, a girl and a boy, to the Unusual Uses Test, which is used to measure students’ creativity (Silvia & Phillips, 2004). Can you tell which of the two sheets was written by a boy?
between males and females. Let’s start by distinguishing between the word gender, which
refers to traits and behaviors that a particular culture believes to be appropriate for men
and women, and the word sex, which refers to the biological differences of men and women
(Brannon, 2002). Regardless of the age, culture, and many other differences among your
students, you will be confronted with both sex and gender differences. Sex differences are
almost always immediately obvious and controlled by nature. Gender differences instead
are psychologically and socially controlled differences related to how individuals express
their biological sex in their behavior. Gender bias occurs when a person has unjustified views
of female versus male competencies favoring one gender over the other.
Nature versus Nurture. There is much debate about the extent to which biological differences
(nature) and gender socialization (nurture) affect people’s behavior. There are physical
characteristics such as size and growth rate that can be explained by genetics (Berk,
2006). In addition, sex hormones affect the development of gender differences in the
brain. For example, testosterone affects the development of the right and left hemispheres
of the brain, with males exhibiting more lateralization of their brains than females
(Meinschaefer, Hausmann, & Guentuerkuen, 1999). Other evidence for the role of hormones
in gender differences comes from research on women’s change in abilities across
their menstrual cycle. Specifically, when female hormones are at their lowest, females do
better on tasks in which males are typically superior, (such as visuospatial ones), and when
female hormones are at their peak, females do better on tasks in which females typically
excel, such as verbal fluency (Hampson, 1990). However, males and females are mostly
indistinguishable in their brain anatomy. The two documented exceptions are that the
corpus callosum is larger in females than in males (LeDoux, 1996, 2002) and that the areas
of the brain involved in visuospatial processing are larger in males than in females
(Frederikse et al., 2000). Still, what is not clear is whether these brain differences are the
cause of the different behaviors that females and males display or their effect.
The case for nurture is supported by cross-cultural research, which shows that all societies engage in gender
socialization: teaching the behavior and attitudes considered appropriate for a given sex. All cultures have genderspecific roles and treat males and females differently in many respects; however, different societies display quite different gender roles (Feingold, 1992; Grossman & Grossman, 1994). Additional support comes from a sociocognitive theory of gender, which emphasizes the role that observation, imitation, rewards, and punishment play in children’s gender development. For instance, many parents
encourage different activities, traits, and toys for boys and girls (Brannon, 2002; Bronstein, 2006). Peers are also found to reward gender-appropriate and punish genderinappropriate behavior (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006), playing an important gender-socializing role. Finally, the media also shape gender roles by portraying females and males as having different traits or engaging in different activities
(Comstock & Scharrer, 2006; Pacheco & Hurtado, 2001). The role of gender socialization is illustrated in
Figure 2.6, which shows the responses of two fourth-graders, a girl and a boy, to the Unusual Uses Test, which is used to measure students’ creativity (Silvia & Phillips, 2004). Can you tell which of the two sheets was written by a boy?
Socioeconomic Diversity
Sociologists often classify individuals into upper class, middle class, working class, and
lower class, depending on their relative wealth, power, and prestige. Table 2.3 shows
selected characteristics for each one of these groups (Macionis, 2006). The term socioeconomic
status (SES) is also used to categorize individuals based on their economic,
educational, and occupational characteristics. SES is one of the most powerful factors
influencing student achievement, often shadowing other group differences such as
those stemming from ethnic background or gender. For example, upper-SES
European-Americans share many more characteristics with upper-SES African-
Americans and Hispanic-Americans than with lower-SES European-Americans, including
how they spend their vacation time, the sports they play, and how and where they
socialize. At school, SES predicts students’ intelligence and achievement scores, grades,
and dropout and suspension rates (Macionis, 2006).
Health Care. As shown in Figure 2.4, about 17% of children under 18 years of age in the
United States were living in families below the poverty line in 2006, with a rate of almost 53% for single-mother families, approximately 33% for African-Americans, 27% for Hispanics, 11% for Asians
and Pacific Islanders, and 10% for whites (DeNavas-Walt,Proctor, & Smith, 2007). Low-SES families have less access to good prenatal and infant health care and nutrition and are more likely to have premature babies, and children in poverty are more likely to be exposed to legal and illegal
drugs before birth. Figure 2.5 shows that children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the population of all uninsured children in 2006 (DeNavas-Walt
et al., 2007). These factors are all associated with impairments in higher cognitive development and with lower school achievement (McLoyd, 1998). Poor children do not receive medical or dental care regularly and suffer from untreated illnesses at a rate that is estimated to be at least twice that of middle-SES children (Sanders-Phillips, 1989)
Resources. Low-SES families have less access to highquality preschool care for their children, and this can
place them at a disadvantage in intellectual and social development (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In addition, the schools that low-SES children attend often have fewer resources than those in higher-income neighborhoods (McLoyd, Aikens, & Burton, 2006). Although low- and high-SES children are found to
make similar gains in reading and math during the school year, low-SES children fall behind when schools are closed in the summer (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997). This results from the limited number of neighborhood and home resources of lower- SES families, including computers, books, museums, and libraries, which has a negative impact on students’ opportunities to learn outside of school. To facilitate continuous learning, some experts have recommended year-round education, with students having
several short vacations rather than one three-month summer break (Weaver, 1992).
Home Support and Stimulation. Lack of emotional and cognitive stimulation at home
can account for up to a half of low-SES children’s academic disadvantages (Korenman,
Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995). One study with over 1,200 adolescents found that poverty was
related to lower math and reading scores and less cognitively stimulating home environments
(Eamon, 2002). Higher-SES parents are, on average, more involved in their children’s
school activities than lower-SES parents (Brown, Anfara, & Roney, 2004; Diamond
& Gomez, 2004). This is partly because parents in low-SES households need to work at
two or more jobs (Weiss et al., 2003) and partly because many low-SES parents had limited
education themselves, so they are not as capable of helping their children with schoolwork
(Finders & Lewis, 1994). On average, higher-SES parents talk with more elaborated
language and encourage their children to engage in problem solving more than do lower-
SES parents (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004). They also have positive expectations for their
children and encourage them to graduate from high school and attend college (Brown
et al., 2004; McGrath, Swisher, Elder, & Conger, 2001). In contrast, many low-SES students
may not place a high value on education (Graham, 1997) and may have no definite
career plans after leaving school (Pollard, 1993).
Teacher Expectations. In low-income neighborhoods, middle-SES teachers are likely to
have low expectations for these learners and fail to provide sufficient stimulation to promote
the development of high-order thinking skills (Persell, 1997; Spring, 2006). Similar to the
case of cultural minority students, once these low expectations have been set, the result is a
self-fulfilling prophecy: Teachers subtly communicate these expectations to students in a variety
of ways, and students come to behave in a way that is consistent with such expectations
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
Students at Risk. Children from disadvantaged homes are less likely to have good nutrition,
access to good health care, and opportunities to learn both outside of school
and at school. They are also typically held to lower expectations and likely to live in
impoverished neighborhoods where crime prevails and positive role models are absent
(Vernez, 1998). These factors place students at risk of failing to complete their education
with the skills necessary to succeed in today’s society. However, remember that
there is diversity within socioeconomic groups. Not all poor families lack appropriate
health and nutrition or opportunities to learn for their children, and many parents,
despite being poor, are able to help their children succeed. In fact, some low-SES parents
are actively invested in their children’s learning and education, and their children
achieve at higher levels as a result (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999). The
opposite is also true. Coming from a high-SES family does not guarantee academic
success. Many children will not get the stimulation, caring, and support found among
the average high-SES families. Parents’ attitudes and behaviors can be more predictive
of students’ achievement than their SES (White, 1982). Furthermore, the many
negative factors that we reviewed do not automatically doom low-SES children to failure.
As you will learn in Chapter 11, many children from impoverished environments
develop what is called resilience, the ability to not only survive but thrive in adverse
environments (Dole, 2000).
In addition, many other individual, family, peer, school, and community factors are
found to be positively correlated with being at risk (Yeakey & Henderson, 2003), such
as the following:
• Being a male
• Being a member of a cultural minority (except Asian-Americans)
• Being a non-native English speaker
• Living in a large city
• Frequently moving from one school to another
• Having low psychological well-being and self-esteem
• Having low expectations or commitment to educational goals
• Poor early academic performance and poor study habits
• Unstable family relationships (e.g., divorce, separation, domestic violence)
• Weak or harsh parent–child relationships
• Associating with delinquents
• Low teacher expectations
• Living in a community where the prospects for socioeconomic success are low
• Living in a community where unemployment, poverty, and
crime are high
How can teachers help support the success of students at risk? One way is to create a mentorship program. For instance, a four-year program funded by the Ford Foundation provided ninth-grade students with the daily support of a caring mentor, academic activities outside school, community service projects,
and cultural and personal enrichment activities (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995). An evaluation of this program showed that 63% of the mentored students graduated
from high school as compared to only 42% of a nonmentored control group. Teachers can also reach out to families and community members and encourage and support students’ learning and motivation in a variety of ways. Classroom Tips: Strategies to Support Students at Risk lists some research-based
strategies (Alderman, 1990; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Garcia, 1999; Pianta, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).
lower class, depending on their relative wealth, power, and prestige. Table 2.3 shows
selected characteristics for each one of these groups (Macionis, 2006). The term socioeconomic
status (SES) is also used to categorize individuals based on their economic,
educational, and occupational characteristics. SES is one of the most powerful factors
influencing student achievement, often shadowing other group differences such as
those stemming from ethnic background or gender. For example, upper-SES
European-Americans share many more characteristics with upper-SES African-
Americans and Hispanic-Americans than with lower-SES European-Americans, including
how they spend their vacation time, the sports they play, and how and where they
socialize. At school, SES predicts students’ intelligence and achievement scores, grades,
and dropout and suspension rates (Macionis, 2006).
Health Care. As shown in Figure 2.4, about 17% of children under 18 years of age in the
United States were living in families below the poverty line in 2006, with a rate of almost 53% for single-mother families, approximately 33% for African-Americans, 27% for Hispanics, 11% for Asians
and Pacific Islanders, and 10% for whites (DeNavas-Walt,Proctor, & Smith, 2007). Low-SES families have less access to good prenatal and infant health care and nutrition and are more likely to have premature babies, and children in poverty are more likely to be exposed to legal and illegal
drugs before birth. Figure 2.5 shows that children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the population of all uninsured children in 2006 (DeNavas-Walt
et al., 2007). These factors are all associated with impairments in higher cognitive development and with lower school achievement (McLoyd, 1998). Poor children do not receive medical or dental care regularly and suffer from untreated illnesses at a rate that is estimated to be at least twice that of middle-SES children (Sanders-Phillips, 1989)
Resources. Low-SES families have less access to highquality preschool care for their children, and this can
place them at a disadvantage in intellectual and social development (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In addition, the schools that low-SES children attend often have fewer resources than those in higher-income neighborhoods (McLoyd, Aikens, & Burton, 2006). Although low- and high-SES children are found to
make similar gains in reading and math during the school year, low-SES children fall behind when schools are closed in the summer (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997). This results from the limited number of neighborhood and home resources of lower- SES families, including computers, books, museums, and libraries, which has a negative impact on students’ opportunities to learn outside of school. To facilitate continuous learning, some experts have recommended year-round education, with students having
several short vacations rather than one three-month summer break (Weaver, 1992).
Home Support and Stimulation. Lack of emotional and cognitive stimulation at home
can account for up to a half of low-SES children’s academic disadvantages (Korenman,
Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995). One study with over 1,200 adolescents found that poverty was
related to lower math and reading scores and less cognitively stimulating home environments
(Eamon, 2002). Higher-SES parents are, on average, more involved in their children’s
school activities than lower-SES parents (Brown, Anfara, & Roney, 2004; Diamond
& Gomez, 2004). This is partly because parents in low-SES households need to work at
two or more jobs (Weiss et al., 2003) and partly because many low-SES parents had limited
education themselves, so they are not as capable of helping their children with schoolwork
(Finders & Lewis, 1994). On average, higher-SES parents talk with more elaborated
language and encourage their children to engage in problem solving more than do lower-
SES parents (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004). They also have positive expectations for their
children and encourage them to graduate from high school and attend college (Brown
et al., 2004; McGrath, Swisher, Elder, & Conger, 2001). In contrast, many low-SES students
may not place a high value on education (Graham, 1997) and may have no definite
career plans after leaving school (Pollard, 1993).
Teacher Expectations. In low-income neighborhoods, middle-SES teachers are likely to
have low expectations for these learners and fail to provide sufficient stimulation to promote
the development of high-order thinking skills (Persell, 1997; Spring, 2006). Similar to the
case of cultural minority students, once these low expectations have been set, the result is a
self-fulfilling prophecy: Teachers subtly communicate these expectations to students in a variety
of ways, and students come to behave in a way that is consistent with such expectations
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
Students at Risk. Children from disadvantaged homes are less likely to have good nutrition,
access to good health care, and opportunities to learn both outside of school
and at school. They are also typically held to lower expectations and likely to live in
impoverished neighborhoods where crime prevails and positive role models are absent
(Vernez, 1998). These factors place students at risk of failing to complete their education
with the skills necessary to succeed in today’s society. However, remember that
there is diversity within socioeconomic groups. Not all poor families lack appropriate
health and nutrition or opportunities to learn for their children, and many parents,
despite being poor, are able to help their children succeed. In fact, some low-SES parents
are actively invested in their children’s learning and education, and their children
achieve at higher levels as a result (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999). The
opposite is also true. Coming from a high-SES family does not guarantee academic
success. Many children will not get the stimulation, caring, and support found among
the average high-SES families. Parents’ attitudes and behaviors can be more predictive
of students’ achievement than their SES (White, 1982). Furthermore, the many
negative factors that we reviewed do not automatically doom low-SES children to failure.
As you will learn in Chapter 11, many children from impoverished environments
develop what is called resilience, the ability to not only survive but thrive in adverse
environments (Dole, 2000).
In addition, many other individual, family, peer, school, and community factors are
found to be positively correlated with being at risk (Yeakey & Henderson, 2003), such
as the following:
• Being a male
• Being a member of a cultural minority (except Asian-Americans)
• Being a non-native English speaker
• Living in a large city
• Frequently moving from one school to another
• Having low psychological well-being and self-esteem
• Having low expectations or commitment to educational goals
• Poor early academic performance and poor study habits
• Unstable family relationships (e.g., divorce, separation, domestic violence)
• Weak or harsh parent–child relationships
• Associating with delinquents
• Low teacher expectations
• Living in a community where the prospects for socioeconomic success are low
• Living in a community where unemployment, poverty, and
crime are high
How can teachers help support the success of students at risk? One way is to create a mentorship program. For instance, a four-year program funded by the Ford Foundation provided ninth-grade students with the daily support of a caring mentor, academic activities outside school, community service projects,
and cultural and personal enrichment activities (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995). An evaluation of this program showed that 63% of the mentored students graduated
from high school as compared to only 42% of a nonmentored control group. Teachers can also reach out to families and community members and encourage and support students’ learning and motivation in a variety of ways. Classroom Tips: Strategies to Support Students at Risk lists some research-based
strategies (Alderman, 1990; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Garcia, 1999; Pianta, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).
Language Diversity
Until 1979, 9% of students in the United States were from families whose primary
language was other than English, also known as language minority students. By 2004,
the percentage of language minorities had risen to 19%, and projections estimate that
by 2026, 25% of students will come from families in which the primary home language
is not English (NCES, 2006). The number of school-age children who spoke English
with difficulty has also increased, from 3% in 1979 to 5% in 2004. Students whose
English proficiency level is lower than what it should be to succeed in English-only educational
programs have been called limited English proficient (LEP), English language
learners (ELLs), or considered to be learning English as a second language (ESL). The
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act gives states flexibility in defining the students who
constitute the LEP or ELL subgroup and makes state education agencies responsible
for increasing ELLs’ English language proficiency and core content knowledge.
Similarly, the law gives states, districts, and schools flexibility to implement any language
instruction program that is based on scientifically based research on teaching English
to LEP children. These programs may use both English and the student’s home language
and may include English-proficient students to allow all students to become language
proficient. Teaching language minority students to read and write well in English
is an urgent challenge because some language minority students are not faring well in
U.S. schools. For instance, whereas 10% of students who speak English at home fail to
complete high school, the percentage is five times as high (51%) for language minority
students who speak English with difficulty (August & Shanahan, 2006).
In Which Language Should ELLs Be Taught? The increasing number of ELLs presents
a dilemma to the education system. On one hand, many educators and policymakers
feel that the language of instruction should be English only, because English
skills are essential to achievement in every academic subject and to educational and
economic opportunities in the United States. On the other hand, many language
minority parents feel strongly about the need to instruct their children in their home
language as a way to maintain their cultural identity. Due to the political nature of
this question, it is difficult to come up with an unequivocal answer. In which language
do you think ELLs should be taught? Keep reading and you will find out about the
advantages and disadvantages of different English language learner programs.
English Language Learner Programs. Historically, the most common method used in
the United States for ELLs is immersion, where ELLs are immersed in an English-only classroom.
An alternative is structured English immersion (SEI) programs, which are carefully
designed to build students’ vocabulary and language skills (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).
Specifically, SEI programs teach English at a level that is appropriate to the class of ELLs,
teachers try to maximize instruction in English over the first three years of instruction, and
classroom aides who speak a non-English language provide instructional support to children
having temporary difficulties following a lesson in English (Baker, 1998). SEI has been
successfully implemented in Canada (Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989),
Texas (El Paso Independent School District, 1992), and New York (Tobias, 1994). A third,
promising solution to help language minority students develop literacy in both their first
and second language is bilingual education, instructional programs where ELLs are provided
instruction in their first language while they learn English. Bilingual education comes
in many flavors. Each of these approaches is listed in Table 2.2.
The very idea of bilingual education, however, is very controversial. Its legislative foundation
comes from the 1968 Title VII Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which supported
bilingual education for all language minority students, especially for those of lower
SES (Crawford, 1991). This law was followed up by the 1974 Lau v. Nichols court decision,
which resulted in the Lau Remedies, a document including specific guidelines to meet the
needs of language minority students (Hakuta, 1986). Many Americans, however, believe
that English-only or English immersion programs, a “sink-or-swim” method, worked in the
past and should work now as well (Crawford, 1991; Hakuta, 1986). People who hold this
position have sponsored active political efforts to eradicate bilingual education through
state referendums and in some cases, such as in Arizona, California, and Massachusetts,
have succeeded. Before reading the next paragraph, take a few minutes to reflect on the
benefits of bilingual education from the standpoint of today’s classroom teacher.
Experts argue that the pros of bilingual education are to allow ELLs to keep up
with their peers in core academic topics while they develop proficient English skills. If
this support is not given, students will not be able to access their prior knowledge, which
is the foundation for interpreting new information (Cummins, 1996). Students’ home
language should never be sacrificed, since it is the only mechanism through which they make sense of their own world experiences (Macedo, 1991). Moreover, not providing
language minority students with a voice in the classroom can hinder their need to feel
accepted, which, as you will learn in Chapter 10, is one of the learner-based conditions
to become motivated to learn (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Additional arguments in favor of bilingual education come from research in language
development, which shows that the more proficient students are in their first
language, the easier it is to learn a second language (Bozzone, 1995), and that adding
English to a well-developed first language can enhance thinking skills and metalinguistic
skills, the ability to think about language itself (Bialystok, 2001; Bowey, 1986;
Diaz & Klinger, 1991). Furthermore, bilingualism can increase student interaction
in cases where students speak only one of two different languages (Doyle, 1982).
Evaluating ELL Programs. The arguments mentioned in the previous section suggest that
bilingual education programs can have positive results for both ELLs and native English
speakers (Snow, 1986). But do they actually show these benefits? Let’s take a look at what
the research says. On the one hand, total immersion helps English-speaking students who
live in their native country become proficient in a second language fairly quickly (Collier,
1992; Cunningham & Graham, 2000; Krashen, 1996; Thomas, Collier, & Abbott, 1993).
On the other hand, non-English-speaking students who have recently immigrated to an
English-speaking country show higher academic achievement, greater self-esteem, and a
more positive attitude toward school when taught with bilingual education (Marsh, Hau,
& Kong, 2002; Snow, 1990; Wright & Taylor, 1995). The different results for the two groups
seems to stem from the fact that English speakers who are learning a second language in
their native country still have many opportunities to keep developing their first language.
Recent immigrants, in contrast, only have the opportunity to use their native language
with their family; thus, they are likely to lose proficiency in their first language before developing
proficiency in English (Perez, 1998; Wright, Taylor, & Macarthur, 2000).
The benefits of bilingual education are also confirmed by a recent analysis of ELL
programs (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005) and by a report from the National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006). In both
studies, after reviewing the extant research on bilingualism, the researchers concluded
that bilingual education programs are effective in promoting academic achievement
as compared to English-only programs and transitional bilingual education programs.
A caveat, however, is that the programs that were compared may have differed in many
ways, such as the diversity of languages spoken by the students, the geographic location
of the school, the quality of instruction, the instructional materials used, and so
on. More controlled research (i.e., experimental, quasi-experimental) is needed to better
understand the effectiveness of bilingual education.
What are some known limitations of bilingual education? One limitation is the lack
of teachers who are fluent bilinguals (Carrier & Cohen, 2005; Flores, Keehn, & Perez,
2002). A second limitation is the difficulty of the transition from a bilingual to an Englishonly
program. Although it takes about two years to develop basic interpersonal
skills in a language, students may need an additional five to seven
years to develop academic language proficiency, a skill that allows students
to handle complex and abstract thinking (Cummins, 2000). Transitional
programs are often too short to prepare students to successfully learn in
English (Gersten & Woodward, 1995; Padilla, 2006). Third, the positive
effects of bilingual education seem to be modest, at best, and even bilingual
education advocates recognize that high-quality English-only instruction
can produce similar outcomes for ELLs (Hayes & Salazar, 2001;
Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Also, remember that there is diversity within language
groups and that immigrant children will vary in their ability to learn
English, depending, among other factors, on their experiences with literacy
and schooling in their first language (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). For
instance, children from lower-case socioeconomic backgrounds have more
difficulty developing English proficiency than their more well-off counterparts
(Rueda & Yaden, 2006). For these children, bilingual education programs may need to be longer and focused on a combination of effective teaching strategies
and positive, warm encouragement (Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; Goldenberg, 1996).
language was other than English, also known as language minority students. By 2004,
the percentage of language minorities had risen to 19%, and projections estimate that
by 2026, 25% of students will come from families in which the primary home language
is not English (NCES, 2006). The number of school-age children who spoke English
with difficulty has also increased, from 3% in 1979 to 5% in 2004. Students whose
English proficiency level is lower than what it should be to succeed in English-only educational
programs have been called limited English proficient (LEP), English language
learners (ELLs), or considered to be learning English as a second language (ESL). The
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act gives states flexibility in defining the students who
constitute the LEP or ELL subgroup and makes state education agencies responsible
for increasing ELLs’ English language proficiency and core content knowledge.
Similarly, the law gives states, districts, and schools flexibility to implement any language
instruction program that is based on scientifically based research on teaching English
to LEP children. These programs may use both English and the student’s home language
and may include English-proficient students to allow all students to become language
proficient. Teaching language minority students to read and write well in English
is an urgent challenge because some language minority students are not faring well in
U.S. schools. For instance, whereas 10% of students who speak English at home fail to
complete high school, the percentage is five times as high (51%) for language minority
students who speak English with difficulty (August & Shanahan, 2006).
In Which Language Should ELLs Be Taught? The increasing number of ELLs presents
a dilemma to the education system. On one hand, many educators and policymakers
feel that the language of instruction should be English only, because English
skills are essential to achievement in every academic subject and to educational and
economic opportunities in the United States. On the other hand, many language
minority parents feel strongly about the need to instruct their children in their home
language as a way to maintain their cultural identity. Due to the political nature of
this question, it is difficult to come up with an unequivocal answer. In which language
do you think ELLs should be taught? Keep reading and you will find out about the
advantages and disadvantages of different English language learner programs.
English Language Learner Programs. Historically, the most common method used in
the United States for ELLs is immersion, where ELLs are immersed in an English-only classroom.
An alternative is structured English immersion (SEI) programs, which are carefully
designed to build students’ vocabulary and language skills (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).
Specifically, SEI programs teach English at a level that is appropriate to the class of ELLs,
teachers try to maximize instruction in English over the first three years of instruction, and
classroom aides who speak a non-English language provide instructional support to children
having temporary difficulties following a lesson in English (Baker, 1998). SEI has been
successfully implemented in Canada (Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989),
Texas (El Paso Independent School District, 1992), and New York (Tobias, 1994). A third,
promising solution to help language minority students develop literacy in both their first
and second language is bilingual education, instructional programs where ELLs are provided
instruction in their first language while they learn English. Bilingual education comes
in many flavors. Each of these approaches is listed in Table 2.2.
The very idea of bilingual education, however, is very controversial. Its legislative foundation
comes from the 1968 Title VII Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which supported
bilingual education for all language minority students, especially for those of lower
SES (Crawford, 1991). This law was followed up by the 1974 Lau v. Nichols court decision,
which resulted in the Lau Remedies, a document including specific guidelines to meet the
needs of language minority students (Hakuta, 1986). Many Americans, however, believe
that English-only or English immersion programs, a “sink-or-swim” method, worked in the
past and should work now as well (Crawford, 1991; Hakuta, 1986). People who hold this
position have sponsored active political efforts to eradicate bilingual education through
state referendums and in some cases, such as in Arizona, California, and Massachusetts,
have succeeded. Before reading the next paragraph, take a few minutes to reflect on the
benefits of bilingual education from the standpoint of today’s classroom teacher.
Experts argue that the pros of bilingual education are to allow ELLs to keep up
with their peers in core academic topics while they develop proficient English skills. If
this support is not given, students will not be able to access their prior knowledge, which
is the foundation for interpreting new information (Cummins, 1996). Students’ home
language should never be sacrificed, since it is the only mechanism through which they make sense of their own world experiences (Macedo, 1991). Moreover, not providing
language minority students with a voice in the classroom can hinder their need to feel
accepted, which, as you will learn in Chapter 10, is one of the learner-based conditions
to become motivated to learn (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Additional arguments in favor of bilingual education come from research in language
development, which shows that the more proficient students are in their first
language, the easier it is to learn a second language (Bozzone, 1995), and that adding
English to a well-developed first language can enhance thinking skills and metalinguistic
skills, the ability to think about language itself (Bialystok, 2001; Bowey, 1986;
Diaz & Klinger, 1991). Furthermore, bilingualism can increase student interaction
in cases where students speak only one of two different languages (Doyle, 1982).
Evaluating ELL Programs. The arguments mentioned in the previous section suggest that
bilingual education programs can have positive results for both ELLs and native English
speakers (Snow, 1986). But do they actually show these benefits? Let’s take a look at what
the research says. On the one hand, total immersion helps English-speaking students who
live in their native country become proficient in a second language fairly quickly (Collier,
1992; Cunningham & Graham, 2000; Krashen, 1996; Thomas, Collier, & Abbott, 1993).
On the other hand, non-English-speaking students who have recently immigrated to an
English-speaking country show higher academic achievement, greater self-esteem, and a
more positive attitude toward school when taught with bilingual education (Marsh, Hau,
& Kong, 2002; Snow, 1990; Wright & Taylor, 1995). The different results for the two groups
seems to stem from the fact that English speakers who are learning a second language in
their native country still have many opportunities to keep developing their first language.
Recent immigrants, in contrast, only have the opportunity to use their native language
with their family; thus, they are likely to lose proficiency in their first language before developing
proficiency in English (Perez, 1998; Wright, Taylor, & Macarthur, 2000).
The benefits of bilingual education are also confirmed by a recent analysis of ELL
programs (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005) and by a report from the National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006). In both
studies, after reviewing the extant research on bilingualism, the researchers concluded
that bilingual education programs are effective in promoting academic achievement
as compared to English-only programs and transitional bilingual education programs.
A caveat, however, is that the programs that were compared may have differed in many
ways, such as the diversity of languages spoken by the students, the geographic location
of the school, the quality of instruction, the instructional materials used, and so
on. More controlled research (i.e., experimental, quasi-experimental) is needed to better
understand the effectiveness of bilingual education.
What are some known limitations of bilingual education? One limitation is the lack
of teachers who are fluent bilinguals (Carrier & Cohen, 2005; Flores, Keehn, & Perez,
2002). A second limitation is the difficulty of the transition from a bilingual to an Englishonly
program. Although it takes about two years to develop basic interpersonal
skills in a language, students may need an additional five to seven
years to develop academic language proficiency, a skill that allows students
to handle complex and abstract thinking (Cummins, 2000). Transitional
programs are often too short to prepare students to successfully learn in
English (Gersten & Woodward, 1995; Padilla, 2006). Third, the positive
effects of bilingual education seem to be modest, at best, and even bilingual
education advocates recognize that high-quality English-only instruction
can produce similar outcomes for ELLs (Hayes & Salazar, 2001;
Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Also, remember that there is diversity within language
groups and that immigrant children will vary in their ability to learn
English, depending, among other factors, on their experiences with literacy
and schooling in their first language (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). For
instance, children from lower-case socioeconomic backgrounds have more
difficulty developing English proficiency than their more well-off counterparts
(Rueda & Yaden, 2006). For these children, bilingual education programs may need to be longer and focused on a combination of effective teaching strategies
and positive, warm encouragement (Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; Goldenberg, 1996).
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
CHAPTER 2: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND DIVERSITY IN THE CLASSROOM?
Regardless of where you teach, you will encounter many manifestations of student diversity
in your classroom. The goal of this chapter is to help you build a framework to better
understand the many sources of diversity in the classroom and to develop an open
mind when interpreting students’ thinking and behavior. Some teachers may believe
that using a package of good teaching techniques can promote the learning of all
students. However, expert teachers know that students differ in many fundamental ways
that affect how they learn. Effective teachers will adapt their teaching to reach every
student. Each one of your students will have an identity that is the product of his/her
past experiences, abilities, personality, gender, social class, nationality, ethnicity, and
religion. You will also bring your own identity to the classroom, including your professional
knowledge and skills. Your task, as a teacher, will be to understand and connect
with a roomful of diverse students and use your expertise to help them develop the
knowledge and skills they need to succeed in our society. Today’s teachers are likely to
find classrooms as diverse as Ms. Branson’s. Although the specific numbers will vary
depending on where you teach, in the average U.S. classroom approximately 50% of
students are girls and 50% boys, 40% of students are in free or reduced lunch programs,
20% are English language learners, and 13% are in special education programs
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006; U.S. Department of Education,
2008). To help organize our discussion of diversity, this chapter is divided into three
sections: group differences, individual differences, and student exceptionalities. Group differences are the ways in which one group of people may be different from
another group. For example, people from Russia have different characteristics (e.g., customs,
values, dress code) than people from China or Cuba. Group differences include
differences in culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender. Keep
in mind that individuals belong to several groups at the same time. For instance, a person
can be Hispanic American, female, and of high SES simultaneously and feel different
degrees of identification with each one of these groups. Remember also that the
uniqueness of all human beings stems from the great variation that is found within any
group of reference. For example, compare yourself to a friend that you know well and
who shares many group identifiers with you, such as someone of your same gender, ethnicity,
and social class. Now think about the many ways in which you and your friend
are different from each other. You will soon realize that group identification can only
give teachers very broad clues about their students’ thinking and behavior.
There are also many individual differences (which are discussed in the next section
of this chapter). In sum, the information presented in this section is not intended
to help you predict any particular student behavior or thinking but rather to make you
aware of group differences that may affect students’ learning and performance. The
challenge is to keep the information presented in this section in mind without assuming
that all students from a particular group will display the typical or average patterns
found by research (not all children from Asian countries are good at math, for example).
It’s important not to reinforce a stereotype, a rigid, overly simplistic, and inevitably
inaccurate representation of any particular group of individuals. Expert teachers never
assume that a particular student will think or behave in a manner that is expected for
his/her gender, culture, or SES but rather view each student as a unique individual
and use what they know about group differences to help explain why students learn
differently in school.
Cultural, Ethnic, and Racial Diversity
Culture is a term that describes the knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviors that characterize
a group of people. It can be thought of as a schema or blueprint that guides
the thinking and behavior of a group, including the ways to dress, work, play, and communicate
verbally and nonverbally with others. Cultures are subject to change over time,
especially when cultural groups come into contact with others (Lee, 1999; Rogoff,
2003). For example, the daily diet of many Europeans today includes potatoes, tomatoes,
and chocolate. However, these food sources were unknown to Europeans until the
16th century, when they came in contact with the Native American cultures. Likewise,
when speakers of different languages interact closely, it is typical for their languages to
influence each other. For instance, the Romanian language was influenced by the Slavic
languages spoken by neighboring tribes after the fall of the Roman Empire.
A major determinant of the culture in which people grow up is ethnicity, a term
that refers to their common place of origin. Ethnic groups share a sense of interdependence
due to the fact that they are comprised of people of the same race, national
origin, or religious background (NCSS Task Force on Ethnic Studies Curriculum
Guidelines, 1992). For instance, since 2000, U.S. census respondents have been allowed
to identify their ethnicity as being Hispanic or Latino, a category that includes “a person
of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish
culture or origin, regardless of race” (Office of Management and Budget, 1997). Ethnic
groups may be made up of subgroups with distinctive characteristics. For instance, there
are significant differences in appearance, customs, and beliefs among Hispanics who
may distinguish themselves as Chicano, Mexicano, of Mexican descent, or of Spanish
descent (Losey, 1995). Race is the category of people who share biologically transmitted
traits such as skin color or hair texture (Macionis, 2006). However, there are no
biologically pure races and, depending on the definition, people identify between 3
and 300 different races (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993). In fact, the original U.S. census in 1790 had only three racial categories: white, black, and
Indian. However, since 2000, census respondents are allowed
to indicate their racial identity by selecting one or more of the
following six categories: American Indian or Alaska Native;
Asian; black or African-American; Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander; white; and other.
Today’s classrooms are likely to have a wide array of cultural,
ethnic, and racial diversity among students. Teachers need to
understand that ethnicity cannot be judged on the basis of physical
characteristics (white skin or brown skin, for example) or
birthplace (Korea, Chile, or the United States) alone but rather
by learning about the extent to which students participate in various
cultural and ethnic-group activities (Gutierrez & Rogoff,
2003; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Depending on their background,
students may participate actively in two or more cultures
(A. M. Lopez, 2003a; Root, 1999). For instance, in one study, over
a third of the students in a public high school in California
reported being of mixed heritage and identified with more than one cultural background
(A. M. Lopez, 2003b).
Because most schools in the United States are based largely on European-American,
middle-SES culture, also known as mainstream culture, students matching this cultural
background will be those who adapt easily to the classroom environment. The larger
the difference between students’ home culture and the mainstream culture, the more
likely they will experience some type of culture shock, a term used to describe the anxiety
and confusion felt when people have to operate within an entirely different cultural
or social environment, such as a foreign country. Culture shock can threaten students’
adjustment to school and achievement (Casanova, 1987; Ramsey, 1987), especially when
there is a cultural mismatch between the teacher and the student, because teachers are
likely to misinterpret ethnic minority behaviors by viewing the world from their own cultural
frame of mind (Ogbu, 1992). Although this is understandable, it may lead teachers
to unfairly judge students’ cultural practices as less desirable or inferior. The next
sections describe some examples of cultural diversity to help you become more aware
of the potential differences in your students’ thinking and behavior. Keep in mind that
there is significant variation within ethnic groups. One of the skills of a reflective practitioner
is to carefully consider individual differences when interpreting students’ verbal
and nonverbal behavior and to avoid forming stereotypes about any group. Before
reading any further, look at the photo on this page and take a few minutes to reflect on
your beliefs about ethnic and cultural differences.
Language Differences. Perhaps the most obvious cultural difference is students’ language
background. The number of native student languages (other than English) in U. S.
school districts ranges from 1 to 119, with the average number of languages represented
in individual districts being 8 (Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003). Recall from Chapter 1
that 8% of public school students speak little or no English at home (NCES, 2006). Even
when English is spoken at home, students may speak dialects, which are special forms of
English with distinctive pronunciations and grammatical structures. Dialects are usually
the preferred way to communicate in the everyday life of a cultural group and are considered
to be part of group identity (McAlpine, 1992; Ogbu, 1999). An example is African-
American Vernacular English, also known as Black English or Ebonics.
Teachers may find it difficult to perceive speakers of other dialects in the same
positive light as those students who speak Standard English, the form of the English
language that is thought to be the norm for educated speakers (Gollnick & Chinn,
2002). The attitude a teacher displays toward students whose first language is not
English or who speak a dialect of English shapes how these students perceive
school and how they are supported (or not) as learners (Gupta, 1999). Respecting
a student’s first language is essential for building a solid classroom community.
Experts argue that it is very important to clearly communicate with students about when it is appropriate for them to use Standard English or their first language.
Teachers must communicate their expectations and their rationale (Pugach, 2006).
Because success in mainstream society is facilitated when adults have good
Standard English proficiency, ideally, students should be encouraged to develop
and use both, depending on the communication context and purpose (Casanova,
1987; Ogbu, 1999). We discuss different ways to instruct students with varying language
needs in the upcoming section on language diversity.
Communication Differences. Regardless of the language used, different cultural and
ethnic groups have diverse verbal and nonverbal communication practices. For
instance, although mainstream culture is characterized by frequent talking and filling
up of silent spaces with small talk, many Native American and aboriginal cultures place
great value on silence (Basso, 1972; Popat & Dinnage, 2006; Trawick-Smith, 2003). In
some cases, excessive talking can even be interpreted as a sign of immaturity or lower
intelligence, such as in many Japanese communities and the Inuit culture (Crago, 1988;
Minami & McCabe, 1996). Mexican-American, Southeast Asian, and African-American
cultures in the southeast part of the country and many Puerto Ricans, Mexican-
Americans, and Native Americans in the United States teach children not to engage
in adult conversations unless their participation is solicited (Delgado-Gaitan, 1994;
Grant & Gomez, 2001; Hidalgo, Siu, Bright, Swap, & Epstein, 1995; Lomawaima, 1995).
In addition, the mainstream classroom practice of interacting by asking students questions
to evaluate their understanding may be unfamiliar in some cultures or even run
against their expectations. This is the case of people from some African-American and
Mexican cultures, who consider asking questions to be appropriate only when the initiator
does not know the answer to the question (Losey, 1995; Rogoff, 2003). Another
source of cultural diversity comes from the amount of wait time, the time given to
respond to a question. According to research, teachers’ typical wait time is a second
(Rowe, 1987). When no answer is produced quickly, they either provide the answer
themselves or call on another student. However, some cultures express their respect
for others by giving significant time to respond to a question (Gilliland, 1999; Grant
& Gomez, 2001; Tharp, 1989). As you will learn in Chapter 6, it is important that teachers
leave enough wait time for students’ responses not only because of the potential
cultural differences in this regard but also as an effective method to engage them in
deeper thinking.
In some cultures, it is inappropriate for children to make eye contact with an adult
who speaks to them (Gilliland, 1999; Irujo, 1988; Torres-Guzman, 1998). Therefore,
teachers should be careful to not quickly judge lack of eye contact as a sign of passive
listening or disrespect. This nonverbal behavior could signify quite the opposite.
Likewise, depending on the culture, interrupting rather than taking turns to speak may
be an acceptable way to communicate. For example in some African-American, Puerto
Rican, and Jewish families, adults and children speak simultaneously, presumably
because waiting for one’s turn can exclude the person from the conversation (Condon
& Yousef, 1975; Hale-Benson, 1986; Slonim, 1991).
Cooperation versus Competition Differences. Because most classrooms emphasize
individual performance, this may lead to competition among students (see Figure 2.1).
As you will learn in Chapter 9, motivation experts discourage competitiveness in the
classroom, which is found to detract from students’ intrinsic motivation to learn
(Wentzel, 1999). A competitive orientation can be especially detrimental to cultures
that emphasize cooperation such as some Mexican-American, Native American, South
Asian, and Pacific Island groups (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005; McDevitt & Ormrod,
2004). In these cultures, children are taught the value of group rather than individual
achievement; consequently, students will be more likely to feel comfortable working
with others, helping one another on assignments, or sharing knowledge (Deyhle
& Margonis, 1995; Lipka with Mohatt & the Ciulistet Group, 1998; Rogoff, 2003). If
criticized for sharing their work with peers (which many mainstream teachers misinterpret
as “cheating”) or made to compete rather than cooperate with their peers, these students may rebel or withdraw from further attempts to succeed in school (Grossman, 1990; McIntyre, 1996). Research finds that these students will also respond more positively to praise that is focused on their family, community, or cooperative learning group rather than on their individual accomplishments
(Bennett, 1999; Vasquez, 1990). For instance, Mr. Duncan is reviewing the progress of one of
his reading groups. He brings together all group members and says, “I am very pleased
with your work. You are all working really well together. You have read five stories and
increased your vocabulary by 20 words. That is a lot of improvement in just two weeks!
Congratulations!”
Time Orientation. American mainstream culture is very time oriented. Children are taught
to monitor and make the most out of their time, and individuals who are better time managers
and work efficiently are rewarded by society. Typical classrooms also reflect this
orientation by having a set schedule, with starting and ending times for each class, project, or
activity, and establishing deadlines to turn in homework, papers, and other assignments.
However, for some cultures, this view may be limiting, rigid, or even upsetting (Bennett,
1999). For instance, Principal Nez is a Navajo
woman who strives to help her non-Navajo teachers understand the traditions and
worldviews of her community. At Eagle Rock Middle School, 98% of the students are
Navajo. Ms. Smith, a recently hired sixth-grade teacher from the Teach for America
program (www.teachforamerica.org), is having her first meeting with Principal Nez to
learn more about her future students. Among the many helpful tips, the principal offers
the following: Use time frames for turning in work instead of due dates (e.g., accept
papers from September 23 to 29 rather than have papers due on September 25); give
students partial credit for completing work within a reasonable delay (e.g., establish a
penalty of 10% of the grade for finishing an assignment after three days from the deadline);
and, when possible, allow students to work at their own pace.
Family and Worldviews. Although most cultures value school achievement highly and
parents encourage their children to do well at school, for some cultural groups, family
needs may take precedence over academic needs (Duran & Weffer, 1992; Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Yee, 1992). Therefore, it is not unusual to observe
students in many Hispanic, Native American, and Asian communities to leave school when
their family requires their assistance (Banks & Banks, 2004; Fuligni, 1998). Additional conflict
between academic values and cultural values may arise for students from traditional
Native American culture, as they are expected to participate in the ceremonies of their
community and develop art, dance, and other traditional skills (Kirschenbaum, 1989; Reid,
1989). For instance, tenth-grader Takoda is torn. His mom just called to tell him that his
grandfather died and that his family will be going to the reservation for the Keeping of
the Soul ceremonies. Takoda knows that this means missing the next two weeks of school
and midterm exams. He feels that he has to honor his grandfather and family, but he is
worried about how he will make up for missed schoolwork and tests, and he is afraid to
lose his spot on the basketball team for missing so much practice.
Finally, students may not only show differences in their behaviors but will have different
beliefs and assumptions about the world. For instance, depending on their culture,
children will believe that hurricanes are the result of natural forces or believe that
they are a consequence of people’s actions or supernatural forces, as illustrated by the
following example (Lee, 1999). In Mrs. Fredricks’s social studies class, they are discussing
the increase in hurricanes over the last three years and the impact this has had
on coastal societies. Mrs. Fredricks explains, “Scientists believe that the oceans are getting
warmer. This means that there is more heat in the atmosphere for these large
storms to grow, making stronger hurricanes and more hurricanes. If this is true, what
do you think the future holds for coastal cities?” Tamara replies, “I don’t think that is
true. My dad told me that the hurricanes are sent by God. He said that Katrina was a
message from God reminding us that we need to be good. If people were good, hurricanes
would not happen.” As you see, the different worldviews that students bring to
the classroom will affect the ways they interpret what is taught.
Approaches to Teaching in the Culturally Diverse Classroom
During the 1960s and 1970s, educators felt that minority students were having problems
at school because they were not assimilated into mainstream American culture,
whereas many ethnic groups expressed their interest in maintaining their culture and
identity and rejected the idea of becoming completely assimilated into the mainstream
culture. During that time, students were described as “disadvantaged” or
“handicapped,” and a cultural deficit model was used to explain the achievement gap
as the result of a home culture that failed to prepare them to succeed academically.
The term achievement gap is commonly used to describe the difference in academic
achievement between African-American or Latino students and white, middle-SES students.
Because the cultural deficit model focuses on what students and their families
do not have or cannot do, teachers who take that approach are likely to interact differently
with diverse students. For instance, they may call on them less frequently
during discussions, give them less time to construct responses to questions, identify and correct
misbehaviors more frequently and more harshly, give them lower grades, engage in less
informal talk, and fail to establish close relationships with their families (Pugach, 2006). Nieto
(2004) points out that most teachers do not adopt a deficit model consciously, yet, once the
low expectations for cultural minority students have been set, the result can be a self-fulfilling
prophecy: Low-expectation minority students perform poorly and confirm the teacher’s original
bias against them. Today, most educators reject the cultural
deficit model. Some well-intentioned teachers take a “neutral” position, claiming that they
“don’t see color” in their classroom and treat all students as individuals (Paley, 2000). The problem
with this view is that all students have a color (white is a color, too!) that is central to their life
experiences and affects how they make sense of the world. By ignoring color or cultural diversity
in the classroom, teachers take an easy way out and free themselves from reflecting on issues
they may find uncomfortable. Others, instead, value the assets of different cultural communities
and believe that culturally diverse students can maintain their cultural identity while still being
successful in school (see figure 2.2). Therefore, they are committed to learn about the differences
among their students and use this knowledge to create the conditions in which all have
the opportunity to achieve well. This approach will be most important if you work with students
who belong to a cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic group that is different from your own. By
acknowledging that each one of your students is a unique individual with distinctive strengths and
connecting your teaching to their experiences, you can play an important role in narrowing the
achievement gap across ethnic and socioeconomic lines. One approach that was born from the need
to respond to the increasing diversity of the student population and the need to offer equal
opportunity to all students is multicultural education. Multicultural education is not a specific educational
program but rather “a wide variety of programs and practices related to educational equity, women, ethnic groups, language minorities, low-income groups, and people with disabilities” (Banks & Banks, 2007, p.
7). Figure 2.3 shows the five dimensions of multicultural education according to Banks
and Banks (2007). The ultimate goal of this approach is to help students develop the
knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function within their culture, other cultures,
and the global community.
There is no best approach to creating a multicultural classroom but rather quality
practices have been recognized to help reduce racism, sexism, and prejudice while providing
equal opportunities to learn for all students. For example, Ladson-Billings (1990,
1992, 1995) uses the term culturally relevant pedagogy to describe the practices of exemplar
teachers who served an African-American community in California. The basic principles
of culturally relevant pedagogy are the following:
1. Learners must experience academic success.
2. Learners must maintain their cultural competence.
3. Learners must develop a broad sociopolitical consciousness to be able to critique
the social norms, values, and institutions that produce and maintain social
inequities.
Gay (2000) describes an approach called culturally responsive teaching consisting of
using the “cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance
styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant
to and effective for them” (p. 29). Teachers can find a massive reservoir of instructional
materials and pedagogies about how to implement multicultural education in the
classroom on the National Association for Multicultural Education website (http://www.nameorg.org). Effective multicultural educators strive to know their students
through interaction and exploration, examine their own attitudes and beliefs
about cultural diversity, resist the tendency to make judgments about students’
behaviors when these are in conflict with their own, and help students develop the
same sensitivity toward each other. A synthesis of the characteristics of effective multicultural
teachers is presented in Table 2.1 (Garcia, 1999).
Even when classrooms do not include students from different ethnic backgrounds,
teachers will still need to address conflict, differences, and biases about ethnic
groups not represented in the classroom (Pugach, 2006). Teachers can
include in the curriculum multiple perspectives on knowledge and the role of
social justice. Teachers who work in monocultural white schools may need to decide
which perspectives on history or social sciences will be discussed and be prepared to
address students’ responses, especially when they disclose misconceptions or
biases. For example, Mr. Costello, an American history teacher in a monocultural white school, has decided to discuss the
role of the Buffalo Soldiers, primarily black military units serving from 1866 to 1948.
After reading a passage describing their history, he asks the students to compare how
black soldiers’ experience may have differed from that of white soldiers.
“Well, I think the black soldiers should consider themselves lucky because they didn’t
have to fight in the trenches in Europe. They got to hang back and supply the troops
with what they needed. No one was shooting at them,” Jenny responded.
“Maybe, but that wasn’t what they were trained to do, right? Is that fair?”
Mr. Costello prompted.
“I guess it’s not fair, but at least they got to serve their country. Isn’t that what they
wanted to do?” Jenny asked.
Tom responds, “But they were trained to do much more than that, and the only
reason they weren’t allowed is because of their skin color. Its kinda like training eight
years to be a doctor and then being told you can’t really practice medicine because
your hair is curly. Plus, they didn’t get to be officers. Also, they died serving like the
white soldiers but they didn’t get their medals and recognition.”
As you see, teachers who work in monocultural minority schools will also need to
be prepared to discuss issues of equity, prejudice, and bias because social issues are likely
to permeate the classroom conversation. In sum, regardless of having or not having
culturally diverse students in their classroom, teachers have the responsibility to work
with their students to achieve a more harmonious and tolerant society.
in your classroom. The goal of this chapter is to help you build a framework to better
understand the many sources of diversity in the classroom and to develop an open
mind when interpreting students’ thinking and behavior. Some teachers may believe
that using a package of good teaching techniques can promote the learning of all
students. However, expert teachers know that students differ in many fundamental ways
that affect how they learn. Effective teachers will adapt their teaching to reach every
student. Each one of your students will have an identity that is the product of his/her
past experiences, abilities, personality, gender, social class, nationality, ethnicity, and
religion. You will also bring your own identity to the classroom, including your professional
knowledge and skills. Your task, as a teacher, will be to understand and connect
with a roomful of diverse students and use your expertise to help them develop the
knowledge and skills they need to succeed in our society. Today’s teachers are likely to
find classrooms as diverse as Ms. Branson’s. Although the specific numbers will vary
depending on where you teach, in the average U.S. classroom approximately 50% of
students are girls and 50% boys, 40% of students are in free or reduced lunch programs,
20% are English language learners, and 13% are in special education programs
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006; U.S. Department of Education,
2008). To help organize our discussion of diversity, this chapter is divided into three
sections: group differences, individual differences, and student exceptionalities. Group differences are the ways in which one group of people may be different from
another group. For example, people from Russia have different characteristics (e.g., customs,
values, dress code) than people from China or Cuba. Group differences include
differences in culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender. Keep
in mind that individuals belong to several groups at the same time. For instance, a person
can be Hispanic American, female, and of high SES simultaneously and feel different
degrees of identification with each one of these groups. Remember also that the
uniqueness of all human beings stems from the great variation that is found within any
group of reference. For example, compare yourself to a friend that you know well and
who shares many group identifiers with you, such as someone of your same gender, ethnicity,
and social class. Now think about the many ways in which you and your friend
are different from each other. You will soon realize that group identification can only
give teachers very broad clues about their students’ thinking and behavior.
There are also many individual differences (which are discussed in the next section
of this chapter). In sum, the information presented in this section is not intended
to help you predict any particular student behavior or thinking but rather to make you
aware of group differences that may affect students’ learning and performance. The
challenge is to keep the information presented in this section in mind without assuming
that all students from a particular group will display the typical or average patterns
found by research (not all children from Asian countries are good at math, for example).
It’s important not to reinforce a stereotype, a rigid, overly simplistic, and inevitably
inaccurate representation of any particular group of individuals. Expert teachers never
assume that a particular student will think or behave in a manner that is expected for
his/her gender, culture, or SES but rather view each student as a unique individual
and use what they know about group differences to help explain why students learn
differently in school.
Cultural, Ethnic, and Racial Diversity
Culture is a term that describes the knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviors that characterize
a group of people. It can be thought of as a schema or blueprint that guides
the thinking and behavior of a group, including the ways to dress, work, play, and communicate
verbally and nonverbally with others. Cultures are subject to change over time,
especially when cultural groups come into contact with others (Lee, 1999; Rogoff,
2003). For example, the daily diet of many Europeans today includes potatoes, tomatoes,
and chocolate. However, these food sources were unknown to Europeans until the
16th century, when they came in contact with the Native American cultures. Likewise,
when speakers of different languages interact closely, it is typical for their languages to
influence each other. For instance, the Romanian language was influenced by the Slavic
languages spoken by neighboring tribes after the fall of the Roman Empire.
A major determinant of the culture in which people grow up is ethnicity, a term
that refers to their common place of origin. Ethnic groups share a sense of interdependence
due to the fact that they are comprised of people of the same race, national
origin, or religious background (NCSS Task Force on Ethnic Studies Curriculum
Guidelines, 1992). For instance, since 2000, U.S. census respondents have been allowed
to identify their ethnicity as being Hispanic or Latino, a category that includes “a person
of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish
culture or origin, regardless of race” (Office of Management and Budget, 1997). Ethnic
groups may be made up of subgroups with distinctive characteristics. For instance, there
are significant differences in appearance, customs, and beliefs among Hispanics who
may distinguish themselves as Chicano, Mexicano, of Mexican descent, or of Spanish
descent (Losey, 1995). Race is the category of people who share biologically transmitted
traits such as skin color or hair texture (Macionis, 2006). However, there are no
biologically pure races and, depending on the definition, people identify between 3
and 300 different races (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993). In fact, the original U.S. census in 1790 had only three racial categories: white, black, and
Indian. However, since 2000, census respondents are allowed
to indicate their racial identity by selecting one or more of the
following six categories: American Indian or Alaska Native;
Asian; black or African-American; Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander; white; and other.
Today’s classrooms are likely to have a wide array of cultural,
ethnic, and racial diversity among students. Teachers need to
understand that ethnicity cannot be judged on the basis of physical
characteristics (white skin or brown skin, for example) or
birthplace (Korea, Chile, or the United States) alone but rather
by learning about the extent to which students participate in various
cultural and ethnic-group activities (Gutierrez & Rogoff,
2003; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Depending on their background,
students may participate actively in two or more cultures
(A. M. Lopez, 2003a; Root, 1999). For instance, in one study, over
a third of the students in a public high school in California
reported being of mixed heritage and identified with more than one cultural background
(A. M. Lopez, 2003b).
Because most schools in the United States are based largely on European-American,
middle-SES culture, also known as mainstream culture, students matching this cultural
background will be those who adapt easily to the classroom environment. The larger
the difference between students’ home culture and the mainstream culture, the more
likely they will experience some type of culture shock, a term used to describe the anxiety
and confusion felt when people have to operate within an entirely different cultural
or social environment, such as a foreign country. Culture shock can threaten students’
adjustment to school and achievement (Casanova, 1987; Ramsey, 1987), especially when
there is a cultural mismatch between the teacher and the student, because teachers are
likely to misinterpret ethnic minority behaviors by viewing the world from their own cultural
frame of mind (Ogbu, 1992). Although this is understandable, it may lead teachers
to unfairly judge students’ cultural practices as less desirable or inferior. The next
sections describe some examples of cultural diversity to help you become more aware
of the potential differences in your students’ thinking and behavior. Keep in mind that
there is significant variation within ethnic groups. One of the skills of a reflective practitioner
is to carefully consider individual differences when interpreting students’ verbal
and nonverbal behavior and to avoid forming stereotypes about any group. Before
reading any further, look at the photo on this page and take a few minutes to reflect on
your beliefs about ethnic and cultural differences.
Language Differences. Perhaps the most obvious cultural difference is students’ language
background. The number of native student languages (other than English) in U. S.
school districts ranges from 1 to 119, with the average number of languages represented
in individual districts being 8 (Hopstock & Stephenson, 2003). Recall from Chapter 1
that 8% of public school students speak little or no English at home (NCES, 2006). Even
when English is spoken at home, students may speak dialects, which are special forms of
English with distinctive pronunciations and grammatical structures. Dialects are usually
the preferred way to communicate in the everyday life of a cultural group and are considered
to be part of group identity (McAlpine, 1992; Ogbu, 1999). An example is African-
American Vernacular English, also known as Black English or Ebonics.
Teachers may find it difficult to perceive speakers of other dialects in the same
positive light as those students who speak Standard English, the form of the English
language that is thought to be the norm for educated speakers (Gollnick & Chinn,
2002). The attitude a teacher displays toward students whose first language is not
English or who speak a dialect of English shapes how these students perceive
school and how they are supported (or not) as learners (Gupta, 1999). Respecting
a student’s first language is essential for building a solid classroom community.
Experts argue that it is very important to clearly communicate with students about when it is appropriate for them to use Standard English or their first language.
Teachers must communicate their expectations and their rationale (Pugach, 2006).
Because success in mainstream society is facilitated when adults have good
Standard English proficiency, ideally, students should be encouraged to develop
and use both, depending on the communication context and purpose (Casanova,
1987; Ogbu, 1999). We discuss different ways to instruct students with varying language
needs in the upcoming section on language diversity.
Communication Differences. Regardless of the language used, different cultural and
ethnic groups have diverse verbal and nonverbal communication practices. For
instance, although mainstream culture is characterized by frequent talking and filling
up of silent spaces with small talk, many Native American and aboriginal cultures place
great value on silence (Basso, 1972; Popat & Dinnage, 2006; Trawick-Smith, 2003). In
some cases, excessive talking can even be interpreted as a sign of immaturity or lower
intelligence, such as in many Japanese communities and the Inuit culture (Crago, 1988;
Minami & McCabe, 1996). Mexican-American, Southeast Asian, and African-American
cultures in the southeast part of the country and many Puerto Ricans, Mexican-
Americans, and Native Americans in the United States teach children not to engage
in adult conversations unless their participation is solicited (Delgado-Gaitan, 1994;
Grant & Gomez, 2001; Hidalgo, Siu, Bright, Swap, & Epstein, 1995; Lomawaima, 1995).
In addition, the mainstream classroom practice of interacting by asking students questions
to evaluate their understanding may be unfamiliar in some cultures or even run
against their expectations. This is the case of people from some African-American and
Mexican cultures, who consider asking questions to be appropriate only when the initiator
does not know the answer to the question (Losey, 1995; Rogoff, 2003). Another
source of cultural diversity comes from the amount of wait time, the time given to
respond to a question. According to research, teachers’ typical wait time is a second
(Rowe, 1987). When no answer is produced quickly, they either provide the answer
themselves or call on another student. However, some cultures express their respect
for others by giving significant time to respond to a question (Gilliland, 1999; Grant
& Gomez, 2001; Tharp, 1989). As you will learn in Chapter 6, it is important that teachers
leave enough wait time for students’ responses not only because of the potential
cultural differences in this regard but also as an effective method to engage them in
deeper thinking.
In some cultures, it is inappropriate for children to make eye contact with an adult
who speaks to them (Gilliland, 1999; Irujo, 1988; Torres-Guzman, 1998). Therefore,
teachers should be careful to not quickly judge lack of eye contact as a sign of passive
listening or disrespect. This nonverbal behavior could signify quite the opposite.
Likewise, depending on the culture, interrupting rather than taking turns to speak may
be an acceptable way to communicate. For example in some African-American, Puerto
Rican, and Jewish families, adults and children speak simultaneously, presumably
because waiting for one’s turn can exclude the person from the conversation (Condon
& Yousef, 1975; Hale-Benson, 1986; Slonim, 1991).
Cooperation versus Competition Differences. Because most classrooms emphasize
individual performance, this may lead to competition among students (see Figure 2.1).
As you will learn in Chapter 9, motivation experts discourage competitiveness in the
classroom, which is found to detract from students’ intrinsic motivation to learn
(Wentzel, 1999). A competitive orientation can be especially detrimental to cultures
that emphasize cooperation such as some Mexican-American, Native American, South
Asian, and Pacific Island groups (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005; McDevitt & Ormrod,
2004). In these cultures, children are taught the value of group rather than individual
achievement; consequently, students will be more likely to feel comfortable working
with others, helping one another on assignments, or sharing knowledge (Deyhle
& Margonis, 1995; Lipka with Mohatt & the Ciulistet Group, 1998; Rogoff, 2003). If
criticized for sharing their work with peers (which many mainstream teachers misinterpret
as “cheating”) or made to compete rather than cooperate with their peers, these students may rebel or withdraw from further attempts to succeed in school (Grossman, 1990; McIntyre, 1996). Research finds that these students will also respond more positively to praise that is focused on their family, community, or cooperative learning group rather than on their individual accomplishments
(Bennett, 1999; Vasquez, 1990). For instance, Mr. Duncan is reviewing the progress of one of
his reading groups. He brings together all group members and says, “I am very pleased
with your work. You are all working really well together. You have read five stories and
increased your vocabulary by 20 words. That is a lot of improvement in just two weeks!
Congratulations!”
Time Orientation. American mainstream culture is very time oriented. Children are taught
to monitor and make the most out of their time, and individuals who are better time managers
and work efficiently are rewarded by society. Typical classrooms also reflect this
orientation by having a set schedule, with starting and ending times for each class, project, or
activity, and establishing deadlines to turn in homework, papers, and other assignments.
However, for some cultures, this view may be limiting, rigid, or even upsetting (Bennett,
1999). For instance, Principal Nez is a Navajo
woman who strives to help her non-Navajo teachers understand the traditions and
worldviews of her community. At Eagle Rock Middle School, 98% of the students are
Navajo. Ms. Smith, a recently hired sixth-grade teacher from the Teach for America
program (www.teachforamerica.org), is having her first meeting with Principal Nez to
learn more about her future students. Among the many helpful tips, the principal offers
the following: Use time frames for turning in work instead of due dates (e.g., accept
papers from September 23 to 29 rather than have papers due on September 25); give
students partial credit for completing work within a reasonable delay (e.g., establish a
penalty of 10% of the grade for finishing an assignment after three days from the deadline);
and, when possible, allow students to work at their own pace.
Family and Worldviews. Although most cultures value school achievement highly and
parents encourage their children to do well at school, for some cultural groups, family
needs may take precedence over academic needs (Duran & Weffer, 1992; Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Yee, 1992). Therefore, it is not unusual to observe
students in many Hispanic, Native American, and Asian communities to leave school when
their family requires their assistance (Banks & Banks, 2004; Fuligni, 1998). Additional conflict
between academic values and cultural values may arise for students from traditional
Native American culture, as they are expected to participate in the ceremonies of their
community and develop art, dance, and other traditional skills (Kirschenbaum, 1989; Reid,
1989). For instance, tenth-grader Takoda is torn. His mom just called to tell him that his
grandfather died and that his family will be going to the reservation for the Keeping of
the Soul ceremonies. Takoda knows that this means missing the next two weeks of school
and midterm exams. He feels that he has to honor his grandfather and family, but he is
worried about how he will make up for missed schoolwork and tests, and he is afraid to
lose his spot on the basketball team for missing so much practice.
Finally, students may not only show differences in their behaviors but will have different
beliefs and assumptions about the world. For instance, depending on their culture,
children will believe that hurricanes are the result of natural forces or believe that
they are a consequence of people’s actions or supernatural forces, as illustrated by the
following example (Lee, 1999). In Mrs. Fredricks’s social studies class, they are discussing
the increase in hurricanes over the last three years and the impact this has had
on coastal societies. Mrs. Fredricks explains, “Scientists believe that the oceans are getting
warmer. This means that there is more heat in the atmosphere for these large
storms to grow, making stronger hurricanes and more hurricanes. If this is true, what
do you think the future holds for coastal cities?” Tamara replies, “I don’t think that is
true. My dad told me that the hurricanes are sent by God. He said that Katrina was a
message from God reminding us that we need to be good. If people were good, hurricanes
would not happen.” As you see, the different worldviews that students bring to
the classroom will affect the ways they interpret what is taught.
Approaches to Teaching in the Culturally Diverse Classroom
During the 1960s and 1970s, educators felt that minority students were having problems
at school because they were not assimilated into mainstream American culture,
whereas many ethnic groups expressed their interest in maintaining their culture and
identity and rejected the idea of becoming completely assimilated into the mainstream
culture. During that time, students were described as “disadvantaged” or
“handicapped,” and a cultural deficit model was used to explain the achievement gap
as the result of a home culture that failed to prepare them to succeed academically.
The term achievement gap is commonly used to describe the difference in academic
achievement between African-American or Latino students and white, middle-SES students.
Because the cultural deficit model focuses on what students and their families
do not have or cannot do, teachers who take that approach are likely to interact differently
with diverse students. For instance, they may call on them less frequently
during discussions, give them less time to construct responses to questions, identify and correct
misbehaviors more frequently and more harshly, give them lower grades, engage in less
informal talk, and fail to establish close relationships with their families (Pugach, 2006). Nieto
(2004) points out that most teachers do not adopt a deficit model consciously, yet, once the
low expectations for cultural minority students have been set, the result can be a self-fulfilling
prophecy: Low-expectation minority students perform poorly and confirm the teacher’s original
bias against them. Today, most educators reject the cultural
deficit model. Some well-intentioned teachers take a “neutral” position, claiming that they
“don’t see color” in their classroom and treat all students as individuals (Paley, 2000). The problem
with this view is that all students have a color (white is a color, too!) that is central to their life
experiences and affects how they make sense of the world. By ignoring color or cultural diversity
in the classroom, teachers take an easy way out and free themselves from reflecting on issues
they may find uncomfortable. Others, instead, value the assets of different cultural communities
and believe that culturally diverse students can maintain their cultural identity while still being
successful in school (see figure 2.2). Therefore, they are committed to learn about the differences
among their students and use this knowledge to create the conditions in which all have
the opportunity to achieve well. This approach will be most important if you work with students
who belong to a cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic group that is different from your own. By
acknowledging that each one of your students is a unique individual with distinctive strengths and
connecting your teaching to their experiences, you can play an important role in narrowing the
achievement gap across ethnic and socioeconomic lines. One approach that was born from the need
to respond to the increasing diversity of the student population and the need to offer equal
opportunity to all students is multicultural education. Multicultural education is not a specific educational
program but rather “a wide variety of programs and practices related to educational equity, women, ethnic groups, language minorities, low-income groups, and people with disabilities” (Banks & Banks, 2007, p.
7). Figure 2.3 shows the five dimensions of multicultural education according to Banks
and Banks (2007). The ultimate goal of this approach is to help students develop the
knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function within their culture, other cultures,
and the global community.
There is no best approach to creating a multicultural classroom but rather quality
practices have been recognized to help reduce racism, sexism, and prejudice while providing
equal opportunities to learn for all students. For example, Ladson-Billings (1990,
1992, 1995) uses the term culturally relevant pedagogy to describe the practices of exemplar
teachers who served an African-American community in California. The basic principles
of culturally relevant pedagogy are the following:
1. Learners must experience academic success.
2. Learners must maintain their cultural competence.
3. Learners must develop a broad sociopolitical consciousness to be able to critique
the social norms, values, and institutions that produce and maintain social
inequities.
Gay (2000) describes an approach called culturally responsive teaching consisting of
using the “cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance
styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant
to and effective for them” (p. 29). Teachers can find a massive reservoir of instructional
materials and pedagogies about how to implement multicultural education in the
classroom on the National Association for Multicultural Education website (http://www.nameorg.org). Effective multicultural educators strive to know their students
through interaction and exploration, examine their own attitudes and beliefs
about cultural diversity, resist the tendency to make judgments about students’
behaviors when these are in conflict with their own, and help students develop the
same sensitivity toward each other. A synthesis of the characteristics of effective multicultural
teachers is presented in Table 2.1 (Garcia, 1999).
Even when classrooms do not include students from different ethnic backgrounds,
teachers will still need to address conflict, differences, and biases about ethnic
groups not represented in the classroom (Pugach, 2006). Teachers can
include in the curriculum multiple perspectives on knowledge and the role of
social justice. Teachers who work in monocultural white schools may need to decide
which perspectives on history or social sciences will be discussed and be prepared to
address students’ responses, especially when they disclose misconceptions or
biases. For example, Mr. Costello, an American history teacher in a monocultural white school, has decided to discuss the
role of the Buffalo Soldiers, primarily black military units serving from 1866 to 1948.
After reading a passage describing their history, he asks the students to compare how
black soldiers’ experience may have differed from that of white soldiers.
“Well, I think the black soldiers should consider themselves lucky because they didn’t
have to fight in the trenches in Europe. They got to hang back and supply the troops
with what they needed. No one was shooting at them,” Jenny responded.
“Maybe, but that wasn’t what they were trained to do, right? Is that fair?”
Mr. Costello prompted.
“I guess it’s not fair, but at least they got to serve their country. Isn’t that what they
wanted to do?” Jenny asked.
Tom responds, “But they were trained to do much more than that, and the only
reason they weren’t allowed is because of their skin color. Its kinda like training eight
years to be a doctor and then being told you can’t really practice medicine because
your hair is curly. Plus, they didn’t get to be officers. Also, they died serving like the
white soldiers but they didn’t get their medals and recognition.”
As you see, teachers who work in monocultural minority schools will also need to
be prepared to discuss issues of equity, prejudice, and bias because social issues are likely
to permeate the classroom conversation. In sum, regardless of having or not having
culturally diverse students in their classroom, teachers have the responsibility to work
with their students to achieve a more harmonious and tolerant society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)