|
Article Excerpt
Abstract. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the presence of teacher biases with regard to identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). Factors related to teachers' gender, age, and experience, along with children's gender, were investigated. Results suggested that teacher gender is associated with biases with regard to identification of learning disabilities by a factor of 2:1. In other words, every child who is rated by female teachers as having an LD (who actually has LD) corresponds two children when rated by male teachers. Students' gender, on the other hand, did not differentially predict identification rates. Furthermore, teacher age and experience did not contribute significantly to student identification rates. The findings are discussed with regard to policy mandates and classification schemes.
**********
Teachers' reports are often used to assess various behaviors in students with and without disabilities (Liljequist & Renk, 2007; Wingenfeld, Lackar, Gruber, & Kline, 1998). Based on the premise that teachers are very important adults in students' lives (Achenbach, 1991), they are asked to contribute their unique perspective regarding various aspects of students' behavior and achievement from preschool to college (Jensen, 1980; Mashburn & Henry, 2004; Temp, 1971). For example, their ratings are used for identification purposes, classification, or just assessment. Regardless of usage, these ratings carry information regarding teachers' predictions of how students will behave and achieve in the future (Wood & Benton, 2005).
Although there is evidence that general and special education teachers often "miss" characteristics defining a disability (Fox & Lent, 1996; Miller, Missiuna, Macnab, Malloy-Miller, & Polatajko, 2001), the importance of their ratings is not debated (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Rubovits & Maehr, 1973; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007), particularly because their estimations are core predictors of students' placement (Podell & Soodak, 1993; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003).
In the present study, we evaluated the role of teachers in identifying students with learning disabilities (LD) and examined the possible presence of bias on their part, including the moderating role of their personal characteristics. The term bias in this study refers to the systematic difference in the ways by which teachers identify learning disabilities and the factors related to them. Those ways may affect teachers' assessment of student performance.
Teachers as a Means of Identifying Students with Disabilities
Teacher ratings are often used for identification of students suspected of having various disabilities. Teachers' involvement in the identification process of students with LD may now be greater than in the past, given the use of the responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) model of identification (Haager, Calhoon, & Linan-Thompson, 2007; Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). As Kavale et al. (2006) pointed out, the decision regarding identification is based on "vague 'clinical' (i.e., teacher) judgements about the level of response" (p. 120).
Judgments on the part of teachers are based on their expectations, perceptions, skills, and training. It is imperative for teachers to provide unbiased estimates of their students' ability, potential, and achievement. Several researchers have blamed teachers for overidentification of learning disabilities (e.g., Wong, 1996). Others have suggested that the number of students with mental retardation has declined primarily because of overidentification of learning disabilities (MacMillan, Siperstein, & Gresham, 1996) (see also Keogh, 2005).
Nevertheless, teacher ratings commonly assist in identifying learning disabilities (e.g., The Learning Disability Diagnostic Inventory [LDDI]; Hammill, 1995) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (e.g., Dupaul et al., 1998). A crucial question is how well teachers accomplish their task, given the often discrepant findings between ratings and observational protocols (Lorenz, Melby, Conger, & Xu, 2007). For example, investigating the interrelationships between intelligence, academic achievement, and teacher estimations of that achievement, Svanum and Bringle (1982) found that teacher race or socioeconomic status did not affect the predictability of their ratings. This finding was replicated by Abidin and Robinson (2002).
In contrast, Messe, Crano, Messe, and Rice (1979) reported that teacher ratings are biased by students' socioeconomic status. Social class and race seemed to be the main factors that influence these ratings (Knotek, 2003; McLeskey, Waldron, & Wornhoff, 1990; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 2001) as well as placement (general vs. special education). That is, teachers in general education settings appear to be less reliable when providing ratings related to LD than special education teachers in special education settings (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
Chang and Demyan (2007) also studied the presence of minority stereotypes in teacher ratings. The authors noted, "Contrary to expectation, there was substantial congruence in the degree of uniformity and favorableness of the stereotypic traits associated with blacks and whites, with participants revealing both strong positive and strong negative trait associations" (p. 91). The authors suggested the need for alternative methods of assessment that may produce more valid ratings as stereotypical ratings can be catastrophic for students' educational experience. For example, teacher biases have been evident with minority groups (e.g., not calling on Asian-American students as often as they did Caucasian students; see Schneider & Lee, 1990).
Rescorla et al. (2007) examined the consistency of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 countries. Using a sample of 30,957 teachers, results indicated that participating educators were fairly accurate in identifying students with behavioral and emotional problems. Internal consistency estimates averaged .90, and gender effects (i.e., discrepancies or biases) ranged between 1% and 5%, which were pretty small and within the range of what constitutes reliable responding. Overall, the authors concluded that teachers' reports were similar and consistent across countries, supporting a model of teachers as valid raters of student behavior.
Another noteworthy finding is that parents' unwillingness to respond to questionnaires is associated with higher bias on the part of teachers regarding the presence of social, emotional, attentional problems, and so forth, in their children (Stormark, Heiervang, Heimann, Lundervold, & Gillberg, 2008). In other words, this pattern of behavior from parents was linked to biased estimates on the part of teachers.
Thus, research findings regarding the effectiveness of teachers in rating students' attributes and behaviors have been largely inconclusive, leaving unanswered such questions as: Which factors influence teachers' ratings? Are there specific teacher characteristics that play a prominent role in the validity of their ratings?
Teachers' Characteristics as Predictors of Their Ratings
Studies have shown that teachers' characteristics influence the validity of their ratings. For example, Rivard, Missiuna, Hanna, and Wishart (2007) investigated teachers' accuracy in identifying children with coordination and behavioral problems. Using a sample of 152 Canadian teachers and eight scenarios demonstrating different levels of motor and behavior problems, findings revealed differential effects due to teacher gender. Specifically, female teachers were more likely to underscore the severity of gross-motor problems; the opposite was true of male teachers. With regard to fine-motor skills, males provided lower responses (were less concerned with) than female teachers, underscoring the significant interaction between teacher gender and type of motor problem with regard to degree of concern.
An interaction between teacher gender and inappropriate student behavior was noted by Taylor, Gunter, and Slate (2001) using videotaped scenarios showing students acting out. They engaged 186 teachers to view the scenarios and to complete a rating scale on inappropriate behaviors. Teacher gender was once again the most...
|
