Beyond cultureblindness: a model of culture with implications for gifted education.

Cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity are ... basic survival skills for almost everyone. (Storti. 1999, p. 1)

As we study and read about the poor achievement of culturally diverse students (specifically, African American, Hispanic American, and Native American students) in schools and their poor performance on achievement and intelligence tests, we share the growing sense of urgency among educators that we need to understand better the factors that contribute to these troubling and persistent findings. In addition to addressing issues of low performance and underachievement by culturally diverse students, educators have sought to increase the representation of these diverse students in gifted education classrooms and services. The magnitude of this problem cannot be overstated nor overestimated--for at least seven decades, Black students, for example, have been underrepresented in gifted education (Ford, 1998; Jenkins, 1943: Witty & Jenkins, 1935). Hispanic American and Native American students are also underrepresented, by 30% to 70% (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, 1998).

Variables that contribute to underrepresentation among diverse students have been explored by Frasier, Garcia and Passow (1995), Frasier and colleagues (Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Finley, Frank, et al., 1995: Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Finley, Garcia, et al., 1995: Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Mitchell, et al., 1995), Baldwin and Vialle (1999), Castellano (2003) and discussed in a special issue of Roeper Review (2002, edited by Tarek Grantham). Contributing variables include testing issues, teacher referral issues, social issues (e.g., negative peer pressures), and identity issues, as well as issues surrounding policies and procedures that have a disparate impact on diverse students. For purposes of the current article, however, Ford, Harris, Tyson, and Frazier Trotman's (2002) discussion of "deficit thinking" is most pertinent. According to these authors, diverse students are underrepresented in gifted education because educators and other decision makers fail to acknowledge, understand, and affirm cultural differences among students. Reactions to culture and diversity can be placed into at least three categories: (1) acknowledging differences among groups, educators seek to understand, negotiate, affirm and work with such differences: (2) operating in a cultureblind fashion, defined as ignoring, minimizing or negating culture and cultural differences, educators pretend that differences do not exist; or (3) holding negative and stereotypic beliefs about culturally diverse students, teachers are deficit-oriented in their thinking. With deficit thinking, teachers recognize cultural differences but in negative ways. Thus, students who are different may be perceived as disadvantaged or dysfunctional, their values, beliefs, norms, and practices may be viewed as "abnormal," "wrong," or "incorrect." Ford et al. argued that educators who hold either of the latter views cultureblind or deficit thinking--may not refer diverse students for gifted education screening and services, and they might have learning environments that are culturally insensitive rather than culturally responsive.

Whatever view one holds of culturally diverse populations, we find ourselves in increased contact with people who are from culturally different backgrounds--yet they are strangers to us. Statistics on teacher and student demographics shed light on this point. Few teachers are culturally diverse. According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE; 2000), during the 1999-2000 school year, 84.3% of teachers were White; conversely, diverse students comprised some 30% of the U.S. population in 2000 (USDE, 2003). And in schools with 30% or higher minority enrollment, 69.4% of teachers are White (USDE, 2000). Finally, while the percentage of culturally diverse students is expected to increase significantly, the percentage of minorities choosing teaching as a profession is not expected to increase. The implications of increased student diversity (world diversity) are profound they suggest that teachers must become more familiar with the realities of culture and its impact on teaching and learning. In the following pages, definitions of culture are presented, along with a model or framework for understanding cultural differences. In the process of describing one model, we share sample scenarios to highlight potential cultural differences in classroom settings. The article concludes with implications for the field of gifted education.

Definitions and One Model of Culture

The term "culture" originates from the Latin word cultura or culturus as in "agri cultura," the cultivation of soil. Later, other meanings were attached to the word. From its root meaning of an "activity," culture became transformed into a condition, a state of being cultivated (Freilich, 1989).

Like the terms intelligence and gifted, there are many definitions of culture. The question "What is culture?" has intrigued scholars in various disciplines for decades. Culture is an enigma in that it contains both concrete and abstract components (Ting-Toomey, 1999). The study of culture has ranged from a locus on architecture and landscape to the study of implicit principles and values to which a group of members subscribe (p. 9).

Ting-Toomey (1999) defines culture as a complex frame of reference that consists of patterns or traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and meanings that are shared in varying degrees by interacting members of a community (p. 10). More specifically, D'Andrade (1984) offered the following definition:

   [Culture is] learned systems of meaning, communicated
   by means of nature language and other symbol systems ... and
   capable of creating cultural entities and
   particular senses of reality. Through these systems of
   meaning, groups of people adapt to their environment
   and structure interpersonal activities ... Cultural meaning
   systems can be treated as a very large diverse pool
   of knowledge, or partially shared cluster of norms, or
   as intersubjectively shared, symbolically created realities.
   (p. 116)

This definition of culture and others capture three points worth noting. First, culture refers to a diverse pool of knowledge, shared realities, and clustered norms that constitute the learned systems of meanings in a particular society. Second, these learned systems of meanings are shared and transmitted through daily interactions among members of the cultural group and from one generation to the next. Third, culture facilitates the capacity of members to survive and adapt to their external environment (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 9).

Hofstede (1991) is credited with the phrase: "The body is the hardware and culture is the software." A Macintosh computer and an IBM computer serve the same functions, but do so in different ways due to different software. So it is with different groups all people eat and sleep; eating and sleeping are universal, but different groups eat different foods (pork vs. beef vs. no meat) for different reasons (to celebrate, because of traditions, because of folklore) and in different ways (fork vs. chopsticks; utensils vs. hands). Further, different groups may have traditions relative to the foods selected and their significance (e.g., on January 1, some groups eat greens which represent money, pork for health, and blackeyed peas for luck, to name a few traditions). All people cook or prepare food, but different groups use different ingredients. Some groups use herbs; others do not. Some use lard; others dare not. All people sleep, but some groups have communal sleeping arrangements, and every cultural group does not have sleeping on a mattress as a norm. In short, the acts of eating and sleeping are universal, but they are influenced by culture or our cultural software.

Conceptually, many people also describe culture using an iceberg analogy. Above the surface of the iceberg are cultural artifacts--music, fashion, and art, for example. However, as described next, what is beneath the surface is termed "invisible culture" or "deep culture." Deep culture includes traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and symbolic meanings. Deep culture, using the computer analogy, is the software. The cultural model developed by Hofstede appears to receive much attention by scholars interested in cultural diversity. Because of its popularity, we present his model in Figure 1. The model includes a discussion of cultural traditions, beliefs, values and norms.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Culturally shared traditions are often mentioned when people think about culturally different groups or individuals. In general, culturally shared traditions include myths, legends, ceremonies, and rituals (e.g., celebrating holidays in certain ways) that are passed on, verbally and nonverbally, from one generation to another. Such traditions include, but are not limited to, how a group honors or celebrates weddings, rites of passage, and holidays. Culturally shared beliefs refer to a set of fundamental assumptions that people hold dearly and without question. These beliefs can revolve around such questions as those regarding the concept of time, the meaning of life and death, the meaning of space, beliefs regarding the roles of males and females, or beliefs regarding education. These beliefs--these assumptions--serve as the explanatory logic for behavior, and as the desired end goals to be achieved. Cultural values refer to a set of priorities that guide such notions as good and bad, fair and unfair, and right and wrong. Cultural values also include evaluative views on such topics as individual competitiveness versus group harmony or collectiveness, and judgmental views on a range of other topics. Heated discussions and debates can and do ensue around differing opinions on the topic under discussion, with each group believing that its view is the right or only view. Finally, cultural norms refer to the collective expectations of what constitutes "proper or improper" behavior in a given situation. Norms guide the scripts to be followed in a particular situation (e.g., how we greet someone, how we introduce ourselves, how we eat, how we show gratitude, how we discipline children, how we treat elderly persons, etc.).

Scholars contend that our ignorance of different traditions, beliefs, values, and norms or rules can produce unintentional clashes among people or groups with different traditions, beliefs, values, and norms or rules (see Ford et al., 2002; Hofstede, 1991 ; Seelye & Seelye-James, 1995; Storti, 1998, 1999). We may not even realize that we have violated another culture's values and norms in a particular situation. The concept of two icebergs clashing illustrates this point. For example, a teacher may celebrate Christmas and offer a gift to a child who does not celebrate or believe in Christmas- a child may offer beef to a teacher who holds cows as sacred: a teacher may consider pre-arranged marriages to be "wrong" and share this with a child whose family believes in this practice; a teacher may use the "okay" sign with a child who recognizes this sign as an insult; a teacher may go to a funeral wearing black when wearing this color is unacceptable in the group's culture. In a wonderfully enlightening book entitled I Felt Like I Was From Another Planet (Dresser, 1994), foreign students new to the US share such cultural blunders or clashes. Their experiences of adjusting to a new culture, one that is very different from their indigenous culture, describe what many scholars refer to as culture shock or culture fatigue.

People who interact with someone from another culture often experience culture shock, a term first coined by Oberg (1960). Culture shock is most severe in prolonged situations; it is defined as severe, sometimes traumatic, difficulty in adjusting to another culture. Culture shock or fatigue occurs when an individual who is away from his/her environment finds him/herself immersed in another environment. The most vivid example is that of traveling to another country. While the notion of culture shock is primarily used relative to international encounters, it can also be applied to intra-national encounters. One example would be a student whose values, traditions, and norms conflict with another student or teacher. A child reared in Mexico might have difficulty understanding, accepting, and appreciating the values of a person reared in Hungary. A teacher who has never interacted with or studied Chinese culture may misunderstand some of the customs and traditions of students from China.

Functions of Culture

   Behavior does not somehow carry its meaning within
   it; meaning is imposed upon it (or not) by those who
   observe it.... What is a behavior in one culture, such
   as a gesture, is in fact not behavior--because it has no
   meaning--in another culture. (Storti, 1999, pp. 10-11)

In addition to defining culture, it is important to understand the functions of culture. Ting-Toomey (1999) proposed that culture serves at least five functions: (a) identity meaning, (b) group inclusion, (c) intergroup boundary regulation, (d) ecological adaptation, and (e) cultural communication.

Identity Meaning Function

Culture provides the frame of reference to answer the most fundamental question of each human being: Who am I? Stated another way, cultural beliefs, norms, and values provide the anchoring points in which we attribute meanings and significance to our identities (Ting-Toomey, 1999). For example, several studies demonstrate that middle-class White Americans frequently value individual initiative in striving for or toward achievement (Seelye, 1993: Theiderman, 1990; Triandis, Brislin, & Hui, 1988). To these individuals, a competent or successful person is one who takes personal initiative to realize his or her potential. In particular, a person who realizes his or her dreams, despite difficult circumstances, is admired and considered successful. These individualistic beliefs may not be held by other cultures; instead, others may value cooperation, and believe in interdependence or a "we-us-our" philosophy that places a high premium on group cohesion and collective strivings. For these individuals, working together toward a common goal or good is valued, and interpersonal relationships are given high priority such that individual competition is played down or devalued.

Group Inclusion Function

Culture also serves the group inclusion function of satisfying one's needs for membership affiliation and belonging. Culture, thus, creates a comfort zone in which people experience in-group inclusion and in-group/out-group differences. Within our own group, we experience safety, inclusion, and acceptance. We tend to speak the same language, share similar values, and are able to read the nonverbal moods and cues of others in our group. Conversely, when interacting with members from other groups, there is increased likelihood for miscommunication and misunderstanding: when working with others, we may have to defend, justify and/or explain our actions; we must be on the alert: we tend to "stand out," resulting in "us-them" conflicts.

Intergroup Boundary Regulation Function

This function shapes our in-group and out-group attitudes in dealing with people who are culturally different. In this vein, culture helps us to form evaluative attitudes toward others who are in or out of our group, and they connote positive- or negative-valenced emotions. In other words, we tend to hold favorable attitudes toward those who are like us, resulting in a certain amount of ethnocentrism. Further, we tend to experience a range of emotions--frustration and bewilderment, for instance--when our norms are violated by the norms of someone from the out-group. This violation comes from being misunderstood and/or unaccepted by others.

Ecological Adaptation Function

Many scholars contend that culture is dynamic rather than static. This function, therefore, facilitates the adaptation process among the self, the cultural community, and the larger environment. People are also dynamic and change with different situations. According to the iceberg analogy described earlier. surface-level cultural elements (e.g., fashion, music, art) change at a faster pace than deep-level cultural elements (e.g., values, beliefs, norms). Change is also based on at least two other conditions: (1) the extent to which behaviors are compatible with a given cultural group and (2) the nature and extent of interaction between individuals from different cultures. Groups reward behaviors that are compatible with their values, beliefs and norms, and sanction those that are not. The extent to which an individual seeks group approval will influence how and how much she or he endeavors to change. Additionally, the more we interact with others, the greater the chance--due to opportunity of adopting some of their traditions, norms, values, and beliefs. When an individual or group adopts cultural traditions and the like from another group, this may indicate assimilation or enculturation (Seelye, 1993: Seelye & Brewer, 1970).

Assimilation (e.g., the melting pot theory) occurs when an individual or group adopts the traditions, beliefs, values, and norms of another group and gives up their own. However, enculturation is more of a blending of two different cultures, such that the individual may be bicultural. Instead of replacing traditions, values, and so forth from one's indigenous culture, the individual adds to his or her culture.

Cultural Communication Function

This function represents coordination between culture and communication. Culture affects communication and communication affects culture (Hofstede, 1991). Put another way, one function of culture is that it is a way to communicate. Verbally, culture affects how a child from one group talks to a teacher or authority figure. In some cultures, teachers are revered because they are adults or authority figures; in another culture, reverence must be earned. In some groups, children are reared not to ask questions of adults; in others, children and adults are "equal" partners in the communication dyad. Further, because communication is verbal and nonverbal, some groups show their feelings more than other groups; and some individuals rely more on nonverbal messages to communicate than verbal messages. Axtell (1989, 1990) shares telling stories of how miscommunication nonverbally has had dire consequences in cross-cultural interactions, particularly when gestures used in one culture are offensive in another culture.

Having shared several definitions and functions of culture, we now present a more concrete discussion of culture. In the next section, dimensions of culture are presented, with specific attention to sample scenarios to illustrate each point.

Dimensions of Culture: Sample Scenarios

   What's special about people from other cultures is not
   simply that they are different from you, but the degree
   to which they are different. (Storti, 1999, p. 2)

In several publications, Storti (1989, 1998, 1999), Ting-Toomey (1999), Hofstede (1980, 1991), Hofstede and Bond (1984), Hall (1959, 1981), Hall and Hall (1987) and many others have presented research-based models and theories of culture. Because space limitations do not permit a detailed discussion of each model, a synthesis of these models is presented, with a major focus on the interpretations of Hofstede's extensive research in a practical guide by Storti (1999). In this section, five dimensions of culture are presented: concept of self, personal versus social responsibility, concept of time, locus of control, and styles of communication. These dimensions, all having at least two extreme poles, are not to be interpreted as dichotomous; rather, they are continuous. For the sake of space and clarity, the discussion and examples below focus on the extreme or opposite orientations of each dimension. Behaviors can fall anywhere along the continuum, with the behavior of some groups falling near the center of the continuum. In the discussion below, we focus on the extreme ends of each continuum (for an extensive discussion of research that summarizes where specific cultural groups fall along the continua, see Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Seelye & Seelye-James, 1995; Storti, 1998, 1999; Ting-Toomey, 1999). The following five dimensions are not an exhaustive list of cultural dimensions 1; again, readers are referred to Hofstede, Storti, Hall, and Ting-Toomey for a more extensive discussion of these five dimensions and others.

Concept of Self

People from different cultures have different notions of personal identity, spanning a wide range of alternatives, from individualism at one end to collectivism at the other end.

Individualism. At this end of the continuum, the smallest unit of survival is the individual. People who are primarily individualistic identify primarily with self, and the needs of the individual are satisfied before those of the group. Looking alter oneself and being self-sufficient guarantees the well-being of the group and visa versa. Independence and self-reliance are emphasized and valued, and personal freedom is highly desired.

Collectivism. At this end, the primary group, often the immediate family, is the smallest unit of survival. One's identity is largely a function of one's membership and role in a group. The survival and success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual, so that in considering the needs and feelings of others, one protects oneself. Harmony and interdependence of group members are stressed and valued, and there is relatively little psychological or emotional distance between group members. This is a "we-us-our" orientation.

   Scenario: What conflicts might ensue when Ms. Jones,
   a teacher, tends toward individualism, while Jerome,
   her student, tends toward collectivism? Ms. Jones is
   likely to value individual effort and independent work,
   while Jerome is likely to enjoy working in groups,
   helping others, and asking questions of classmates.
   When Ms. Jones posts students' grades, Jerome is
   uncomfortable. If he gets a high grade and his friend
   gets a low grade, Jerome is not pleased. He feels
   uncomfortable for standing out, for "outshining" or
   "outshowing" his friends. In several instances, Jerome
   sometimes blames himself for not being more helpful
   to his friends. He then attempts to be more helpful to
   his friends. During these times, Ms. Jones urges
   Jerome to work more independently and to let his
   classmates take care of themselves. Jerome is confused
   and frustrated. What are friends for?, he wonders.

Personal versus Social Responsibility

People in every culture wrestle with how to balance personal responsibilities to family, close friends and colleagues with responsibility to the larger society (including out-groups). Two opposing poles--universalism and particularism--are presented next.

Universalism. At this end of the continuum, people believe there are certain absolutes that apply, regardless of the circumstances or situation. What is right is always right and rules should be applied to everyone in similar situations. Being fair means treating everyone alike and not making exceptions, even for family and friends. Personal feelings are laid aside in order to be objective in looking at situations.

Particularism. At this end, how one behaves in a given situation depends on the circumstances - what is right in one situation may not be right in another. Family and friends are treated the best, and the rest of the world can take care of itself. There is the belief that there will always be exceptions made for certain groups, and to be fair is to treat everyone as unique. Personal feelings should not be laid aside, but rather relied upon.

   Scenario: Mr. Richards is no nonsense when it comes to
   rules; rules are meant to be followed at all times. Therefore,
   students must follow his specific guidelines and
   format when writing assignments and students who
   deviate from the prescribed outline lose points. Tameka
   dislikes such structure; she is not as linear or structured
   in her thinking style and likes to play with ideas. She
   does not believe in only one way to write a paper. Thus,
   she says that she just can't understand or use the outline
   and format prescribed by Mr. Richards. This causes her
   to lose points. She is quickly losing interest in writing.

Concept of Time

Another way that cultures differ is in how people conceive of and manage time, and how their concept of time affects their interactions with each other. The two poles of this continuum are monochronic and polychronic orientations to time.

Monochronic. At this end, time is viewed as a commodity--it is quantifiable and there is a limited amount of it. Therefore, people consider it essential to use time wisely and not waste it. A premium is placed on efficiency, as demonstrated by a sense of urgency that seems to loom over people. When one is monochronic, time is the independent variable and people are the dependent variable. People change and adjust to suit the demands of time; the amount of time does not change. Accordingly, efficiency means doing one thing at a time and doing it well, and interruptions are considered a nuisance.

Polychronic. Time is limitless and not quantifiable when one's orientation is polychronic. There is always more time, and people are never too busy. Time is the servant and tool of people, and it is adjusted to suit the needs of people. Schedules and deadlines often get changed, and people may have to do more than one thing at a time--a sign of being efficient, maximizing time, and using time wisely. People may also prefer to do assignments simultaneously (e.g., typing an assignment while talking to you about a different matter). At this end of the continuum, it is not necessary to finish one task before moving on to something else. Thus, there is no such thing as an interruption; interruptions are not a nuisance. Further, if you are enjoying yourself you lose track of time and concentrate more about the here and now.

   Scenario: Mr. Ogbu (who prefers to be called Brother
   Ogbu) loves being around people. He spends each
   morning talking to students in an attempt to set a positive
   tone for the day. He is often late for meetings, as
   he spends time greeting all students in the hallway. To
   Mark, Mr. Ogbu is wasting time. When the bell rings,
   Mr. Ogbu needs to start the lesson immediately, and
   he should never go over the allotted class period, be
   late, or miss appointments. His job is to teach, not
   waste time socializing.

Locus of Control

Cultural groups differ in the degree to which they view their place vis-a-vis the external world, particularly relative to the degree to which they believe that human beings can control or manipulate their own destiny. Two poles internal and external--are described below.

Internal. The locus of control here is primarily internal, meaning within the individual. People at this end of the continuum believe there are few givens in life: that few things and circumstances have to be accepted as they are: most situations can be changed. There are no limits to what you can do or become, if you set your mind to it, and take the steps necessary to achieve goals. Life is what you do, which represents an activist orientation. (You make your own luck. Where there's a will, there's a way. Every problem has a solution.)

External. This locus of control is largely external, outside of the individual. Some things in life are predetermined. Individuals at this end of the continuum believe there are limits beyond which one cannot go, and there are certain givens that cannot be changed and must, therefore, be accepted. One's success is a combination of one's effort and good fortune. Life is part of what happens to you, which represents a more fatalistic orientation. (That's the way things are. Unhappiness is a part of life.)

   Scenario: Mrs. Lightfoot has just been assigned the
   class of students identified as gifted. She has taken
   some courses in gifted education but struggles with
   the notion of "gifted." In her culture, there is no such
   concept. Those who do well are the ones who work
   hard; it is a personal matter. Gifted is what you do,
   not what you are. Marvena was recently identified as
   gifted, but Mrs. Lightfoot does not support the finding.
   Marvena, she argues, cannot be gifted because
   she does not exert herself enough. She does average
   work. Mrs. Lightfoot finds excuses to not allow Marvena
   to go to her pullout program on Monday morning.
   When Marvena demonstrates that she is "gifted,"
   then Mrs. Lightfoot will be more supportive.

Styles of Communication

Communication is the sending and receiving of messages. What people say, how they say it, and what they don't say are all deeply affected by culture (Storti, 1999). A key feature of the extreme poles is the amount of directness used when communicating. The differences between two poles of directness and indirectness account for more cross-cultural misunderstandings than any other single factor (p. 91) or variable. In addition to degree of directness, communication styles fall along a continuum of high and low context.

Indirect. Groups in the indirect cultures tend to infer, suggest, and imply rather than say things directly. There is a tendency toward indirectness and away from confrontation. In-group members have an intuitive understanding of each other. (People tell you what they think you want to hear: you may have to read between the lines to grasp what someone is saying.)

High-context. This intuitive understanding is known as "context." In high-context cultures, words are not needed or necessary to convey messages; nonverbal communication is a primary mode of communication. It is deemed sufficient to express a message. (What you do is just as important or more important than what you say.) People are sensitive to the setting or environment and are watchful of the behaviors of others. (Actions speak louder than words.) Personal space, touching, eye contact, affect, tone when speaking, and other nonverbal cues receive much attention because they help to communicate messages.

Direct. Direct cultures tend to spell things out: that is, people need to be explicit in communicating their desires, likes, dislikes, and feelings. People say exactly what they mean rather than suggest or imply. Thus. the spoken word carries most of the meaning. (Yes means yes, no means no. One should not read anything into what is not said or done.)

Low-context. In low-context cultures, the primary mode of communication

is verbal. Contextual cues, unique situations and special circumstances are less likely to be noticed because of the reliance on what is said rather than what is done.

   Scenario: Mr. Livingston is very direct in giving students
   feedback on assignments. If they don't like the
   assignment or textbook, they need to say so. If students
   don't understand what has been taught, they
   should ask questions. Lei, a student, holds Mr. Livingston
   and teachers in reverence. If she does not
   understand the lesson, it is her fault. She views understanding
   the lesson as her personal responsibility once
   the teacher has taught it. To ask him a question would
   suggest that he is not a good teacher. Thus, Lei asks
   few questions and does not admit when she is confused
   (no can mean yes). After teaching a lesson, Mr.
   Livingston always asks students if they have questions
   or concerns. Lei never expresses confusion or concerns.
   Thus, when she does not do well on an assignment,
   Mr. Livingston is surprised and frustrated.

Implications for Gifted Education

A persistent challenge facing educators is that of increasing student diversity in gifted education classrooms and services. In addition to rectifying assessment issues, policies, and procedures, researchers have proposed that educators explore additional explanations for underrepresentation. One explanation worth exploring is the cultural mismatch that may exist between teachers (the majority of whom are White) and culturally diverse students. As noted earlier, the student population is more diverse than ever before and the percentage of culturally diverse students is increasing rapidly (USDE, 2003).

Differences between students and teachers can result in cultural mismatch and/or cultural shock. However, teachers who understand culture, who are familiar with the functions of culture, and who are aware of the dimensions of culture are less likely to experience such conflicts. Storti (1999) proposed a model of cultural competence that is noteworthy. He suggests that professionals must continuously strive to be aware of and sensitive to cultural differences when working with others. Teachers must always assume that cultural differences are present in their classrooms and seek to create learning environments that are culturally responsive (Ford et al., 2002), those in which students from different cultural backgrounds feel safe--safe to be themselves, safe to be different. In such an environment, students feel safe physically and psychologically.

Storti (1989, 1998, 1999), Hofstede (1980, 1991), Hall (1959, 1981) and others contend that educators should strive to become culturally sensitive in general, but culturally competent in at least one other culture. Ideally, such cultural knowledge, understanding, and competence will positively impact teachers' perceptions of and relationships with culturally diverse students. What are some potential outcomes of such awareness, knowledge and understanding? Nine possibilities are described below.

Educators may more actively seek to increase the representation of diverse students in gifted programs. This would entail studying student participation and the myriad factors that affect their representation and then developing strategies to decrease such barriers. This would also include broadening the notion of identification to that of "recruiting and retaining" diverse students in gifted education. In particular, it means addressing the questions: How do we get more diverse students in our gifted programs and how can we keep them once placed? How does my teaching style (grouping practices, feedback and directions, focus on competition, etc.) affect students' interest, engagement, and sense of belonging? How can I communicate more effectively with diverse students, families, and communities?

Educators may increase their referral of diverse students for gifted education screening and placement. When cultural differences are not perceived as deficits, teachers are able to see strengths in students who come from different cultural backgrounds. Recognizing students' differences and strengths, teachers are likely to refer culturally diverse students for gifted education screening. These teachers will serve as cultural bridges and advocates for students from diverse backgrounds.

Educators, particularly researchers and theorists', may ensure that culture is reflected in definitions, theories, and research on giftedness. In terms of research, this would include studies conducted with diverse students and being ever mindful of the role of culture when developing and refining definitions and theories of giftedness. And those adopting or developing theories and definitions of giftedness will attend to culture and different manifestations of giftedness. They will avoid being colorblind in their definitions and theories of giftedness by recognizing that what is valued as gifted in one culture may not be valued as gifted in another, and they will honor alternative, culturally influenced definitions and theories of giftedness.

Educators' commitment to equity may increase. Educators may, accordingly, make concerted efforts to ensure that instruments, policies and procedures, as well as staff, do not discriminate against diverse groups. They will endeavor to have policies, procedures, and measures that are culturally sensitive with bias and disparate impact reduced as much as possible.

Educators may work more diligently and conscientiously to provide a learning environment that is culturally responsive. Such a classroom or school is characterized by positive student-teacher relationships, multicultural curricula, and culturally compatible instructional styles. In these environments, it is safe for students to be "different." Teachers work diligently to decrease or eliminate stereotypes about and prejudices against diverse students and groups; they strive to raise their expectations of diverse students. Strategies and resources for creating multicultural gifted education learning environments and curricula appear in Ford and Harris (1999).

Educators, students and their families #nay have more positive and productive relationships. As noted earlier, when people are from different cultures and settle into different environments, they may not have positive encounters or interactions. When cultural differences are understood, teachers and students will have relationships characterized by respect, acceptance, and cooperation. Culturally diverse parents will feel comfortable in school settings, comfortable talking with educators, sate asking for help, and safe sharing their perspectives. This sense of community or family ultimately improves the quality of school life for gifted students from diverse backgrounds.

Educators may be more confident in dealing with race-related issues and incidents in school settings. Some studies indicate that teachers are uncomfortable and ill-prepared to deal with social injustices (e.g., Harmon, 2002). Teachers who feel culturally competent may feel better prepared to negotiate group differences and cultural conflicts. Teachers will engage collectively in a struggle against social injustices and recognize themselves as political beings (Gollnick & Chinn, 2004).

Educators, particularly administrators, may expand their efforts to increase the diversity of their staff. The value of a diverse school staff cannot be overstated or overestimated. Like others, diverse staff can serve as mentors, role models and cultural translators for students--not just culturally diverse gifted students but all students.

Educators, particularly administrators', may increase their efforts to provide staff with multicultural training and preparation. In-services, for example, will be devoted to topics surrounding culture and diversity (e.g., testing and cultural diversity: multicultural curriculum; creating culturally responsive classrooms: working with diverse families and communities; culturally influenced learning styles). A cultureblind philosophy will be avoided.

Summary

   Each of us is like everybody else in some ways (universal
   behaviors), like the people in our culture (cultural
   behaviors), and like no one else at all (personal
   behaviors). (Storti, 1999, p. 16)

Some educators are uncomfortable when labels are used to characterize groups or behaviors. Some of us have been conditioned or encouraged to be "cultureblind," as might be connoted by the statement "I don't see differences, all people are the same."

Relative to labeling, even the terms intelligent and gifted are debated, both within and outside the field of gifted education. To some educators, labels strip a person of her or his personal, unique identity. We would argue that labeling to the extreme may, indeed, result in all-or-nothing thinking, such as the belief that all Black students have a polychronic conception of time, or that all Koreans are indirect in communicating their ideas (2). Such all-or-nothing thinking goes beyond labeling and results in stereotyping, defined as inflexible beliefs about groups that are resistant to change, even when data contradicts the belief (Hewstone, 1989). We have, therefore, avoided summarizing research on group differences along the five dimensions described in this paper. More specifically, space limitations cannot do justice to this discussion, as noted earlier. However, hundreds of studies have examined group differences along these cultural dimensions and reported consistent group patterns relative to concept of time, concept of self, locus of control, and so forth. These patterns help us to make generalizations, but our generalizations must be flexible. What do we mean by the label or concept gifted? What do we mean when we describe a child as intelligent? Certain characteristics, certain generalizations, come to mind when these terms are applied to a person. For instance, an intelligent child may be one who is a logical thinker, an abstract thinker, and a problem solver; a creative child may be original, expressive, and like playing with ideas. And so it is with cultural differences, as presented in the aforementioned scenarios. All people share universals, such as the need for food, water, and shelter. Some groups eat, sleep, and live in dwellings that are different from others. We urge readers to seek extensive preparation in cultural diversity via coursework, professional development opportunities, and readings. Banks and Banks' (2003) handbook presents what may be the most comprehensive source of information on cultural diversity in the context of educational settings. This work, along with the works of Hofstede, Hall, and Storti cited herein, provide a solid starting point from which to become more culturally competent. We offer this suggestion with the understanding that becoming culturally competent is a lifelong process: we must be lifelong learners. We must always be in the process of learning about our students and ourselves. For the sake of our nation's increasingly diverse student population, educators must seek to become more culturally aware, knowledgeable, and competent.

Table 2

Teaching Strategies for Spatial Learners

Effective Teaching Strategies     Less Effective Teaching Strategies

Concept learning                  Rote memorization

Reflection                        Rapid recall of information

Discovery learning                Lecture and oral directions

Reading instruction emphasizing   Reading instruction emphasizing
sight words                       phonics

Activities using manipulatives    Drill and repetition

Interdisciplinary units           Step-by-step learning

Open-ended problem solving        Note taking and outlining

(1) Other dimensions are: management style (authoritarian vs. democratic); power distance orientations; attitude toward work (achievement vs. quality of life); key to productivity (results vs. harmony); source of power (achieved vs. ascribed), and more. Given space limitations, we concentrate on only a few dimensions.

(2) In preparing this article, the senior author (Ford) came across the following statement: "Maintaining a peaceful, comfortable atmosphere is more important [to Koreans] than attaining immediate goals or telling the absolute truth. Koreans believe that to accomplish something while causing unhappiness or discomfort to individuals is to accomplish nothing at all" (Hur and Hur, as cited in Storti, 1999, p. 91). Our own experiences are similar to those shared by Hur and Hur, but we do not expect all Koreans to behave in this way. Thus, this knowledge, for us, is a generalization, not a stereotype as it might be for those with less cultural awareness.

REFERENCES

Axtell, R. E. (1989). The do's and taboos of international trade: A small business printer. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Axtell, R. E. (1990). Do's and taboos of hosting international visitors New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baldwin, A. Y., & Vialle, W. (1999). The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the masks. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Banks, J. A.. & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Castellano, J. A. (2003). Special populations in gifted education: Working with diverse gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

D'Andrade. R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. Shweder, & R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 88-119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dresser. N. (1994). I felt like I was from another planet: Writings from personal experience. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32 (1), 4-14.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris III, J. J. (1999), Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ford, D. Y., Harris III, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52-58.

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

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Garcia, J. H,, & Martin, D. (1995). Educators' perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient backgrounds. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., & Frank, E. (1995). An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the staff development model and the research-based assessment plan in improving the identification of gifted economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.

Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel, S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, V. S. (1995). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.

Freilich, M. (1989). Introduction: Is culture still relevant? In M. Frielich (Ed.), The relevance of Culture (pp, 1-7). New York: Morgan & Garvey.

Gollnick, D. M.. & Chinn, P. C. (2004). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Grantham, T. (Ed.) (2002). Underrepresentation among ethnically diverse students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 24(2).

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture (2nd ed.). Garden City. NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

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

Hewstone, M. (1989). Changing stereotypes with disconfirming information. In D. Bar-Tal. C. Granmann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 207-223). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede. G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.

Jenkins. M. D. (1943). Case studies of Negro children of Binet IQ 160 and above. Journal of Negro Education, 12(2), 159-166.

Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock and the problems of adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 170-179.

Seelye, H. (1993). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication (3rd rev. ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Seelye, H., & Brewer, M.B. (1970). Ethnocentricism and acculturation of North Americans in Guatemala. Journal of Social Psychology, 80, 147-155.

Seelye, H. N., & Seelye-James, A. (1995). Culture clash: Managing in a multicultural world. Chicago. IL: NTC Business Books.

Storti, C. (1989). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1998). The art of crossing cultures (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Storti, C. (1999). Figuring foreigners out: A practical guide. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Theiderman, S. (1990). Bridging cultural barriers for corporate success: How to manage the multicultural workforce. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.

Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C.H. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(3), 269-289.

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

U. S. Department of Education. (1998). Talent and diversity: The emerging world of Limited English Proficient students in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000). School and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000 Public School Teacher Questionnaire and Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Statistics and trends in the education of Blacks. Washington, DC: Author.

Witty. P. A., & Jenkins, M. D. (1935). The case of "B" - A gifted Negro girl. Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 117-124.

Manuscript submitted February 5, 2004. Revision accepted April 7, 2004.

Donna Y. Ford, Ph.D., is the Betts Chair of Education and Human Development in the Peabody College of Education at Vanderbilt University. Her research focuses on the recruitment and retention of minority students in gifted education. In particular, she focuses on identification and assessment issues, multicultural curriculum, underachievement, and social-emotional issues among culturally diverse students. She has written several books and articles and has served on the board of NAGC. E-mail: [e-mail]

James L. Moore III, Ph.D., is currently an assistant professor in counselor education in the School of Physical Activity and Educational Services in the College of Education at The Ohio State University. His work focuses on such topics as how school counselors and other education professionals understand the aspirations, career interests, and school experiences of students of color (particularly African American males). E-mail: [e-mail]

H. Richard Milner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. His research focuses on teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in students' opportunities to learn. E-mail: [e-mail]