Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities.

The process for placement into special services within schools, whether for special or gifted education, begins with a teacher's ability to identify accurately the need for appropriate educational placements (Schwartz, Wolfe, & Cassar, 1997). To date, research in gifted education has focused on screening, profiles, identification, and placement of the twice-exceptional student with high incidence exceptionalities (i.e., learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders) into gifted programming. Although a limited body of literature has pointed to students identified with an emotional/behavior disability (EBD) exhibiting gifted and talented behaviors (Osborne & Byrnes, 1990; Peterson, 1997; Reid & McGuire, 1995), little is known about how the aforementioned issues relate to a teacher's ability to understand and identify gifted and talented (G/T) behaviors in students identified with EBD.

Review of Literature

Hishinuma and Tadaki (1996) explain that despite the diversity within the gifted population, teachers still use a traditional method of referral that often ignores the nuances of a dual diagnosis. They assert that twice-exceptional students are often identified as gifted only after a precipitating referral, such as behavior problems or low achievement. Saunders (1998) reported this problem in the screening of individuals for placement into an EBD program. Generally, it is the behavior disability that becomes the main focus. Others are at risk for misdiagnosis when these precipitating problems are a result of inappropriate educational opportunities (Bireley, 1991). Further, LeVine and Evans (1983) contend that some creative children may exhibit behavior disabilities that are misunderstood and lead to inappropriate placement. They describe two types of behavior disabilities, endogenous or inherent to the personality structure of the individual, and exogenous, or caused by difficulties in adapting to traditional settings. Students who do not conform to the traditional classroom setting or who have differences in learning styles may exhibit behavior disabilities that are exogenously based. LeVine and Evans suggest that "teachers must guard against the creation of conditions that inhibit or punish the healthy expression of individuality" (p. 30).

In addition to positive classroom environments, twice-exceptional students must rely on their teachers for understanding and assistance. Stereotypical attitudes held by teachers have led to the belief that a person with a disability cannot also be gifted (Johnson, Karnes, Carr, 1997). There has been inadequate training in the field of education to make teachers aware that the characteristics of one exceptionality may overlap with other exceptionalities (Johnson, et al.; Whitmore & Maker, 1985). Minner, Prater, Bloodworth, and Walker (1987) found that when identifying students for a gifted program, teachers were less likely to place students with a learning disability (LD) classification into the program. In a later study, Minner (1989) found that when making recommendations for gifted programs, the level of severity in behaviors influenced teachers. These teachers were less likely to refer students with moderate behavior problems inspite of the presence of achievement and other positive descriptors.

Referrals often begin with the teacher, and the importance of teacher personality and experience cannot be ignored. In a study of teacher characteristics and the referral process, Schwartz et al., (1997) found that teacher experience had a significant influence on types of referrals to special education programs for students with emotional disabilities. Both experienced and novice teachers could correctly identify differences among children on the basis of emotional disabilities. Experienced teachers were more likely to include the child's level of impulse control and attractiveness when making referrals, while novice teachers added their perception of the child's level of social judgment and self-esteem. Novice teachers, therefore, may use their own perceptions rather than objective data to identify students. This is particularly important for this study because participants are asked to use their own judgment and experience, in the absence of any observable data.

Perception is an initial factor in determining whether a referral is to take place (Schwartz et al., 1997), and the ability of the teacher to recognize and/or identify G/T behaviors is an initial step in screening and assessment for placement in gifted programs. Based on these elements of the referral process, the following research question drove this study: Are preservice and in-service teachers able to recognize common and overlapping characteristics/behaviors of students identified EBD and gifted? The purpose of this study was to address this research question in an effort to bring attention to issues of identification with regard to twice-exceptional students. Specifically, this study was interested in understanding the stereotypes held by some teachers with regard to behaviors common to both gifted students and students with EBD that influence decisions made about identification.

Method

Sample

The total sample comprised 33 graduate and 59 undergraduate students from teacher preparation programs in Colorado and Indiana. The sample was one of convenience and contained preservice and in-service teachers. The graduate group was made up of 27 females and 9 males who were enrolled in programs as follows: 30.3% gifted education, 48.5% emotional disabilities, 21.2% special education. Ethnically, this group was 82% Caucasian, 3% Hispanic/Latin, 9% other, with 6% missing data. Each participant in the graduate group was currently employed as a teacher (11 regular education, 19 special education, and 3 gifted education).

In the undergraduate group, there were 47 females and 12 males. The majority of the group was enrolled in general education programs (27% elementary education and 63% secondary), and there were 10% special education majors. This group was comprised of 76% Caucasian, 12% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 7% Hispanic/Latin, and 5% African American. Two in the group were employed as per-diem substitute teachers.

Participants were enrolled in graduate and undergraduate general and special education courses. No one's grade in a course was affected by participation in this study. Each participant in the sample was asked to complete a survey that required them to categorize a list of characteristics and behaviors sometimes displayed by students in classrooms. As stated previously, the sample was one of convenience but was chosen specifically to investigate whether there were preconceived ideas held by the undergraduates and if those still held true after training and experience (graduate group).

Instrumentation

The instrument designed for this project contained 63 items that included characteristics and behaviors that are commonly used to describe students identified EBD or gifted as present in the literature from both fields. Instrument construction began with a review of the extant literature from both fields in an effort to find a matrix of characteristics that could describe a gifted student with emotional problems. Since no such matrix exists in either field, common characteristics and behaviors of students identified in both fields became the items on the survey. The four major categories, Feelings and Attitudes, Behaviors, Needs, and Adult and Peer Perceptions, were identified by Betts and Neihart (1988) as major characteristics in the profile of gifted and talented students. These four categories have been widely identified and the focus of much research and discussion in the literature related to EBD (Brendtro & Brokenleg, 1993; Gallagher, 1997; Kauffman, 1992, 1999; Mattison & Felix, 1997). Content validity was tested via the use of expert analysis. Experts in both fields were consulted to verify that the items could be used to describe students who are either gifted or EBD. The present study was a pilot study for a wider construct validity investigation.

Participants in the present study were asked to read each item and categorize it according to whether it described students identified as EBD, Gifted, both groups, or neither group. The items by category can be found in Tables 2 through 5. The instrument yielded nominal data in the form of categorizations. Demographic data were also collected and used to identify response patterns according to program.

Results

The nature of the instrumentation dictated that the results be analyzed using nonparametric methods. Frequency data were examined and differences by item and group (graduate and undergraduate) were noted. To determine whether these differences were significant, chi-square tests were used on the item responses both within and between groups. The data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package for the personal computer. The data from the undergraduate sample yielded one nonsignificant chi-square. The item, "Needs to be challenged," produced a [chi square] = 1.37, df = 1, p < .241.

Analysis of the graduate sample data yielded 12 nonsignificant chi-squares, supporting the hypothesis that there would be differences in response patterns between the two groups. Table 1 contains the items and chi-squares for this group of scores. Closer investigation of the frequency data for these nonsignificant items revealed a split response pattern. Responses to these items could not be significantly attributed to one response category (Gifted, EBD, Both, Neither). These splits reveal a difference in the response patterns between the undergraduate and graduate group that will be discussed in greater detail below.

Frequency data were examined to identify category patterns for each item. Tables 2 through 5 contain the frequency counts for both groups according to the item categories found on the instrument and by response categories of EBD, Gifted, Both, and Neither. It should be noted that the expectation was that all items would be categorized as Both. These tables reveal that the two sample groups were able to identify a majority of the items correctly as pertaining to both groups of students. For example, in the area of Feelings and Attitudes, items endorsed as Both included: angry, defensive, confused, uncertain about social role, insecure, anxious, guilty, resentment, desire to know and learn, intense, different. In the area of Behaviors, items included: takes risks, nonconforming, is defensive, seeks teacher approval, changes friends, wants to belong socially, and questions rules. All items in the category Needs were considered to be characteristics of both groups. Finally, in the category of Adult & Peer Perceptions, the following were endorsed as being characteristics of both groups: discipline problem, engaged in power struggle, and avoided by peers.

When there were discrepancies in endorsements of characteristics, graduate student participants were more likely to categorize the item as pertaining to both groups. Graduate participants had higher response percentages. Undergraduate participants used the category of EBD more often than the graduate group.

Next, the data were analyzed to determine if stereotypes about behaviors existed by student population categories (Gifted and EBD). Figures 1 and 2 show the items that were categorized as describing gifted students and students with emotional/behavior disabilities. While many of the items were correctly identified as being characteristics of both groups, the participants in this study clearly exhibited stereotypical thinking on more extreme items. For example, gifted students were viewed as having personal power, being independent, and admired. They are seen as successful, high achievers, and able to develop their own goals. Students with EBD were seen as having poor self-concept, having mood swings, and having poor self-control. Additionally, they ate viewed as explosive, disruptive, dangerous, and rebellious. Although gifted students are viewed as doing well academically and admired for their abilities, students with EBD are characterized as resistive and dropouts, dopers, or air heads.

Discussion

One conclusion from this study was that undergraduate and graduate student participants had different response patterns when categorizing characteristics of exceptional students. For example, the undergraduate sample was better able to classify the items into one of the categories (Needs) provided on the survey. Additionally, when compared to the graduate group, they attributed more items to the EBD group. Graduate students, however, more often identified the items as characteristics/behaviors of students in both groups (EBD and Gifted), a finding that supports the intent of the instrument since all items came from the literature describing both groups of students. In addition, the graduate group was stronger in their response percentages, showing greater within-group accord. The extent to which this confidence in responding can be attributed to experience is unknown but certainly warrants notation. This finding also supports recent research describing the difference between experienced and novice teachers. For example, Allen and Casbergue (2000) found that expert teachers were more accurate in their recall of student behaviors in classrooms. Clarridge and Berliner (1991) also found that expert teachers were more attuned to student behavior and dealt with misbehavior more effectively than their novice counterparts. Likewise, the experienced group, or graduate students, in the present study by virtue of their exposure to student behavior and coursework on the issues associated with exceptional students were better able to attribute the behaviors and characteristics to both gifted and students with EBD.

Most interesting in the analysis of item responses were the data related to the instrument category called Needs. These data showed that both undergraduate and graduate student participants viewed both groups of students as having the same basic needs. This shows a child-oriented view of exceptional children that extends beyond the exceptionality. According to the results of this research, the participants viewed all children as having the need for support, challenge, an individualized program, and an emphasis on their strengths. Unfortunately, this open attitude did not preclude the participants from viewing specific student behaviors along stereotypical lines. None of the other categories showed such a strong response pattern, indicating that each population of students were viewed as having separate sets of behaviors/characteristics.

Specific items attributed to EBD or gifted students fell into stereotypical patterns for these two groups. Gifted students were viewed positively; in fact, all of the most positive characteristics were attributed to gifted students alone. As discussed previously, gifted students were seen as successful and liked by peers and adults. Students with EBD, on the other hand, were seen as having the most negative characteristics and behaviors. They were disruptive, dropouts, and even dangerous. These data indicate that preservice and in-service teachers, while understanding that all students require special attention, may use stereotypes when judging the behaviors of exceptional students. This tendency could lead to misidentification of twice-exceptional students resulting in school problems previously described by Reid & McGuire (1995). Specifically, gifted students who exhibit oppositional behaviors are at risk for misdiagnosis of their exceptionality if there is only a focus on their negative behaviors. Next, students with EBD who are viewed only through the lens of negativity may not receive an education commensurate with their true abilities. They are at risk of succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy if their teachers do not recognize that they have positive qualities that can help them succeed in school and life. This risk is heightened for the twice-exceptional student whose true gifts and talents may be hidden because of emotional problems and then overlooked because of stereotypes.

Caution should be taken in the interpretation of these data. The present study provided pilot data for a wider instrument validation study. The sample limitations and data restrictions inhibit the generalizability of these data. The results of this study support the need for further research in the issues of teacher attitudes and identification related to twice-exceptional students. The following implications are offered cautiously but confidently, based on the literature and results of the current investigation.

Implications

There are three implications to be drawn from the results of this project.

* The screening of students identified EBD for G/T programming may not be initiated because of stereotypical ideas and beliefs related to the characteristics of the two groups.

* Preservice teacher education programs may not be effectively addressing issues related to the needs of the twice-exceptional (EBD/GT) student.

* Students identified EBD may be viewed through and receive services according to a unidimensional set of criteria that potentially ignore talent development.

The current recognition, understanding, and identification of G/T behaviors exhibited by individuals with high incidence disabilities such as a learning disability and attention deficit disorder has resulted in restricted access to gifted programming for these twice-exceptional individuals. The current lack of recognition, understanding, and identification of G/T behaviors exhibited by individuals identified as EBD may have had the inverse effect. The effect of not properly identifying and serving the twice-exceptional student was described by Bireley (1991) as follows: "In those cases where treatment of the individual is as a disabled person to the neglect of the intellectual ability, the individual is likely to assume the `handicapped' or immature pattern" (p. 169). The present study further emphasizes the need for understanding and for the elimination of the stereotypes associated with all exceptional students. In addition, schools of education responsible for teacher training need to incorporate these issues into the coursework for all teachers. No longer is identification strictly an issue for special education. This study demonstrates that general education teachers need to be informed about characteristics and needs of all students but particularly the twice-exceptional.

Teachers need to take a truly child-centered approach to identification that adequately interprets the diversity found in children of all ability levels. Future research needs to focus on the EBD population, as it has on populations with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders, to improve on understanding and appropriate service. In addition to more preservice and in-service teacher training on identification issues, more opportunities should be afforded to students that allow them to develop their talents. Research that documents successful practices would further perpetuate positive responses to programming for twice-exceptional students.

Figure 1

Items characterized by
subjects as behaviors of
gifted students

Personal power
Independent
Corrects teachers
High achiever
Develops own goals
Does well academically
Evaluative
Admired for abilities
Successful
Loved by teachers
Admired by peers

Figure 2

Items characterized by
subjects as behaviors of
EBD students.

Poor self-concept
Unaware
Explosive
Has mood swings
Has poor self-control
Intermittent attendance
Is self-abusive
Is disruptive, acts out
Adults are angry with them
Seen as loners, dropouts, dopers,
  or air heads
Seen as dangerous and rebellious
Seen as weird, dumb
Rebellious
Peers see them as entertaining
Viewed as resistive

Table 1
Graduate Data--Nonsignificant Chi-Squares by Item (n = 33)

Item                              [chi square]   df   significance

Adults are angry with them              .76       1       .384
Is angry                               3.67       1       .055
Is a discipline problem                 .27       1       .601
Is disruptive                          1.48       1       .223
Is guilty                              5.18       1       .159
Desire to know and learn               2.45       1       .117
Poor self-concept                       .27       1       .601
Viewed as resistive                     .03       1       .862
Personal power                         6.25       1       .044
Engaged in power struggles             6.12       1       .013
Is unaware                            10.52       1       .015
Seen as average/regular student       10.27       1       .016
Has mood swings                        5.12       1       .024

Table 2
Items With Categories by Group With Percentages
(Feelings & Attitudes)

Items                    Undergraduate   Percent   Graduate   Percent
                           Category                Category
Angry                    Both            61.0      Both       66.7
Poor self-concept        EBD             50.8      Both       54.5
Unaware                  Neither         40.7      Both       42.4
                         EBD             37.3
Defensive                Both            59.3      Both       81.8
Confused                 Both            33.9      Both       69.7
Uncertain about social
  role                   Both            88.1      Both       81.8
Insecure                 Both            78.0      Both       87.9
Anxious                  Both            67.8      Both       78.8
Guilty                   Neither         37.3      Both       36.4
                         Both            33.9
Resentment               Both            59.3      Both       57.6
Explosive                EBD             55.9      Both       51.5
Desire to know and
  learn                  Both            61.0      Both       63.6
Personal power           Gifted          47.5      Gifted     42.4
                         Both            39.0      Both       42.4
Independent              Gifted          54.2      Gifted     60.6
Intense                  Both            78.0      Both       97.0
Different                Both            88.1      Both       97.0

Table 3
Items With Categories by Group With Percentages
(Behaviors)

Items                      Undergraduate   Percent   Graduate   Percent
                              Category               Category

Corrects teachers          Gifted          52.5      Both       60.6
Questions rules            Both            69.5      Both       84.8
Has mood swings            EBD             61.0      EBD        48.5
Has poor self-control      EBD             57.6      EBD        51.5
                           Both            45.5
Wants to belong socially   Both            94.9      Both       97.0
High achiever              Gifted          74.6      Gifted     81.8
Changes friends            Both            64.4      Both       66.7
Intermittent attendance    Both            44.1      EBD        45.5
                           EBD             40.7
Is self-abusive            EBD             62.7      EBD        57.6
Seeks teacher approval     Both            69.5      Both       69.7
Is disruptive, acts out    Both            47.5      Both       60.6
                           EBD             45.8
Is defensive               Both            64.4      Both       72.7
Develops own goals         Gifted          62.7      Gifted     63.6
Does well academically     Gifted          54.2      Gifted     66.7
Nonconforming              Both            59.3      Both       65.6
Evaluative                 Gifted          47.5      Gifted     51.5
Takes risks                Both            54.2      Both       51.5

Table 4
Items With Categories by Group With Percentages (Needs)

Items                      Undergraduate   Percent   Graduate   Percent
                              Category               Category

To see deficiencies        Both            45.8      Both       54.5
To be challenged           Both            57.6      Both       72.7
Appropriate curriculum     Both            88.1      Both       97.0
To be connected with
  others                   Both            91.5      Both       97.0
To learn tact,
  flexibility, and self-
  control                  Both            69.5      Both       87.9
Freedom to make choices    Both            86.4      Both       97.0
Awareness of feelings      Both            76.3      Both       90.9
Self-acceptance            Both            83.1      Both       90.9
An individualized
  program                  Both            81.4      Both       87.9
Intensive support          Both            72.9      Both       84.8
Alternatives, counseling   Both            61.0      Both       87.9
Emphasis on strengths      Both            66.1      Both       84.8
Coping skills              Both            66.1      Both       84.8
Advocacy                   Both            81.4      Both       97.0
Feedback                   Both            98.3      Both       93.9

Table 4
Items With Categories by Group With Percentages
(Adult & Peer Perceptions)

Items                      Undergraduate   Percent   Graduate   Percent
                             Category                Category

Adults are angry with
  them                     EBD             55.9      EBD        57.6
Seen as loners,
  dropouts, dopers, or
  air heads                EBD             61.0      EBD        60.6
Seen as dangerous and
  rebellious               EBD             72.9      EBD        63.6
Seen as weird, dumb        EBD             50.8      Both       57.6
Avoided by peers           Both            69.5      Both       63.6
Admired for abilities      Gifted          84.7      Gifted     72.7
Successful                 Gifted          66.1      Gifted     60.6
Loved by teachers          Gifted          67.8      Gifted     63.6
Admired by peers           Gifted          61.0      Gifted     48.5
Rebellious                 Both            49.2      Both       66.7
                           EBD             44.1
Engaged in power
  struggle                 Both            62.7      Both       69.7
Discipline problem         Both            54.2      Both       54.5
Peers see them as
  entertaining             EBD             52.5      Both       51.5
Seen as average and
  successful               Neither         40.7      Neither    48.5
Viewed as resistive        EBD             55.9      Both       51.5
                           Both            32.2      EBD        48.5

Manuscript submitted February, 2001.

Revision accepted November, 2001.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (2000, April). Impact of teachers' recall on their effectiveness in mentoring novice teachers: The unexpected prowess of the transitional stage in the continuum from novice to expert. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441 782)

Betts, G., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248-253.

Bireley, M. (1991). The paradoxical needs of the disabled gifted. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 163-175). New York: Teachers College Press.

Brendtro, L. K., & Brokenleg, M. (1993). Beyond the curriculum of control. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 1, 5-11.

Clarridge, P. B., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function of expertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26, 1-8.

Gallagher, P. A. (1997). Promoting dignity: Taking the destructive D's out of behavior disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1-19.

Hishinuma, E., & Tadaki, S. (1996). Addressing diversity of the gifted/at-risk characteristics for identification. Gifted Child Today, 19 (5), 20-25, 28-29, 45, 50.

Johnson, L. J., Karnes, M. L., & Carr, V. W. (1997). Providing services to children with gifts and disabilities: A critical need. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 516-527). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kauffman, J. M. (1992). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth. New York: Merrill.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 65, 448-468.

LeVine, E., & Evans, M. J. (1983). The behaviorally disordered creative child: A challenge to our diagnostic and teaching procedures. Contemporary Education, 55, 28-32.

Mattison, R. B., & Felix, B. C. (1997). The course of elementary and secondary school students with SED through their special education experience. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 121-134.

Minner, S. (1989). Initial referral recommendations of teachers toward gifted students with behavioral problems. Roeper Review, 12, 78-80.

Minner, S., Prater, G., Bloodworth, H., & Walker, S. (1987). Referral and placement recommendations of teachers toward gifted handicapped children. Roeper Review, 9, 247-249.

Osborne, J. L., & Byrnes, D. A. (1990). Identifying gifted and talented students in an alternative learning center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 143-146.

Peterson, J. S. (1997). Bright, tough, and resilient--and not in a gifted program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 121-136.

Reid, B., & McGuire, M. (1995). Square pegs in round holes--these kids don't fit: Bright students with behavior problems. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Saunders, C. L. (1998). Case study: A gifted child at risk. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 6, 221-226.

Schwartz, N. H., Wolfe, J. N., & Cassar, R. (1997). Predicting teachers' referrals of emotionally disturbed children. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 51-61.

Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Mary G. Rizza is associate professor in the Department of Educational Foundations & Inquiry at Bowling Green State University where she pursues an interest in undergraduate and graduate teacher training. In addition to understanding the special issues of twice-exceptional students, her research interests include investigating issues related to the psychological needs of gifted students.

William F. Morrison is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Intervention Services at Bowling Green State University. A former special educator, he currently teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in classroom/behavior management, introduction to special education, and transition. His research interests include the concerns of twice-exceptional students, issues in teacher preparation, and curricula-based assessment.