|
Article Excerpt
In recent years, the research literature shows an increased interest in gifted African American students. Scholars are responding to the trend of underrepresentation of African Americans in gifted programs (Callahan, 2005; Harris, Brown, & Richardson, 2004; Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005) by addressing the role of race and culture in the experiences of gifted African American students (Grantham & Ford, 2003; Morris, 2002; Rowley & Moore, 2002).
Ford (2002) and Grantham and Ford (2003) introduced ethnic identity as a useful construct with which to understand the psychosocial experiences of gifted African American students. Furthermore, Ford and her colleagues advocated the addition of a multicultural component as a means to increase the identification of gifted African American students, as well as to increase their participation in gifted programs (Ford, Howard, & Harris, 2005; Ford & Moore, 2006; Ford, Moore, & Whiting, 2006; Moore et al., 2005). Other scholars (e.g., A. Baldwin, 1985, 2002, 2004; Frasier, 1991a, 1991b, 1993; Passow & Frasier, 1996) also emphasized the importance of developing alternate ways of identifying talents in students from diverse backgrounds, including the development of alternate identification methods such as the Frasier Talent Assessment Profile (F-TAP; Frasier, 1991b).
Related to, but distinct from the literature on gifted African Americans, is a third line of research that focuses on academic achievement and attitudes among African American students in general (Bennett, 2006). Cokley (2000, 2003) addressed academic motivation in African American college students and challenged the myth of anti-intellectualism among these students. Within this segment of research is a literature base that specifically addresses the academic motivation of African American students (Cokley, 2003; Gordon Rouse & Austin, 2002; Graham, 1994; Hwang, Echols, & Vrongistinos, 2002).
The purpose of this article is to contribute to this motivational focus for African American students in two ways. First, it continues the dialogue of the role of race and culture in the motivation of African American students. Second, and most notably, it expands the current motivational literature by adding a third dimension, giftedness. Thus, the aim here is to discuss the interaction between race and ethnicity and giftedness and then to use an expectancy-value motivation model to demonstrate how the interplay between race and ethnicity and giftedness contributes to the motivation of African American gifted students. To do this, I begin by introducing the concept of race centrality and discussing its relationship to racial and ethnic identity. Next, the interaction of racial identity and giftedness in African American students is addressed. Finally, the Eccles et al. (1983) expectancy-value motivation model is used to describe how racial identity and giftedness contribute to the academic motivation of gifted African American students. Three major questions are answered In the analysis: (a) What are racial and ethnic identity and how do they relate to race centrality? (b) How do racial and ethnic identity, race centrality and giftedness interact? and (c) How do race centrality, racial/ ethnic identity and giftedness influence the motivational patterns of gifted African American students?
RACIAL & ETHNIC IDENTITY AND RACE CENTRALITY
Prior to discussing race centrality and identity, it is important to first clearly define what is meant by racial identity versus ethnic identity. Jones (1997) defined racial identity as relating to "race-related adaptations to the sociopolitical and cultural constructs of race" (p. 292), while he acknowledged that, although ethnic identity is viewed similarly, it more closely refers to "the dynamic forces that attach one to one's racial group" (p. 292). That is, one's racial identity refers to, for example, how one acknowledges, perceives, and consequently adapts to the social and political experiences as an African American, whereas ethnic identity reflects the connection that individuals have with other African Americans, the acknowledgement of shared cultural elements. The distinction between racial and ethnic identity is subtle and the constructs often are used interchangeably.
Racial Identity
One of the most often cited models of racial identity development was first introduced by Cross (1971). The latest version of the model, published in 2001 by Cross and Vandiver (2001) is shown in Table 1. The authors posit that there are types of Black identity distributed across three stages: preencounter, immersion-emersion, and internalization, with the preencounter stage representing the least developed form of racial identity and internalization being the most highly developed form of identity development. The eight types of identity outlined by Cross and Vandiver, from the least psychologically healthy to the most psychologically healthy are assimilation, miseducation, racial self-hatred, anti-White, intense Black involvement, nationalist, biculturalist, and multiculturalist. These initially depend upon an individual's experiences and opportunities to have particular experiences.
Findings from Ford and Harris (1997) suggested a relationship between racial identity and academic achievement. Using Cross's (1971) negriscence model as a framework, the authors investigated the relationship between academic achievement and racial identity development in a sample of middle- and high-school gifted and nongifted students. Generally, students whose identity scores were reflective of higher forms of Black identity development also had higher academic achievement, as measured by grade point average, with gifted students demonstrating higher levels of Black identity development than nongifted students. Similar results have been found by other researchers (e.g., O'Brien, Martinez-Pons, & Kopala, 1999).
Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, and Smith (1997) proposed four dimensions of racial identity. The dimensions identified were salience, centrality, ideology, and regard. Salience refers to the extent to which race is relevant to the self at a particular point in time, and ideology represents one's beliefs, opinions, and attitudes regarding how members of one's racial group should act. Regard has two components: private and public regard. Private regard is the esteem in which individuals hold their race and public regard refers to individuals' perceptions of how members of their race are viewed by outside "others."
The concept of regard addresses the aforementioned concerns regarding the level of one's race centrality. That is, positioning in the lower levels of centrality may be indicators of negative private regard for one's racial group and, consequently, may result in lower identification with the racial group. Centrality is discussed in-depth in the following section.
Race Centrality
Chavous et al. (2003) refered to race centrality as the importance of race to individuals' self-definitions. The authors explained that race centrality taps into the extent to which individuals identify with their racial group, as well as into the extent they perceive themselves as similar to other members of that group. Sellers et al. (1997) added that "implicit in the concept of race centrality is that there is a hierarchical ranking of different identities, such as gender and occupation, with regard to their proximity to the individual's core definition of self" (p. 806). The authors further described race centrality as generally stable and not situation-specific (as opposed to racial salience, which may vary from one situation to another).
Cokley and Helms (2001) acknowledged a possible danger inherent in assessments of race centrality. The authors noted that...
|
