This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
http://ldx.sagepub.com/ Teacher Attitudes Toward Dyslexia: Effects on Teacher Expectations and the Academic Achievement of Students With Dyslexia
Lisette Hornstra, Eddie Denessen, Joep Bakker, Linda van den Bergh and Marinus Voeten J Learn Disabil 2010 43: 515 originally published online 5 May 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0022219409355479 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/43/6/515
Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Additional services and information for Journal of Learning Disabilities can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/43/6/515.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Oct 29, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 5, 2010 What is This?
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5, 2013
which can result in lower teacher expectations for these students. 2002) and in their beliefs regarding students with disabilities 1 2 University of Amsterdam. University of Amsterdam. the Netherlands Email: T. one type of SLD) in regular education classrooms. Department of Educational Science. These could be caused by stigmatization of these students by their teachers.Hornstra@uva. The results show implicit attitude measures to be a more valuable predictor of the achievement of students with dyslexia than explicit.sagepub.E. The present study is thus aimed at an examination of whether students with dyslexia are indeed at risk for stigmatization by their regular education teachers.e.nl Downloaded from ldx. those without learning disabilities).sagepub. self-report measure. Given that students with dyslexia already show low achievement in reading and/or spelling. The focus of the present study is on children with a label of dyslexia (i. Neither the implicit nor the explicit measures of teacher attitudes related to teacher expectations. teacher–child interaction.nav DOI: 10.. Achievement scores for 307 students were also obtained. as in many other countries. Linda van den Bergh3. methodological issues For almost two decades. and Marinus Voeten2 Journal of Learning Disabilities –529 43(6) 515 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. Joep Bakker2. has been aimed at inclusion of children with general learning disabilities (GLDs) and specific learning disabilities (SLDs) (see Note 1) in regular education classrooms. Implicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia related to teacher ratings of student achievement on a writing task and also to student achievement on standardized tests of spelling but not math for those students with dyslexia. and whether lower teacher expectations can affect the achievement of students with dyslexia. Inclusive Education Educational policy is increasingly aimed at teaching students with special educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Keywords dyslexia. That is. Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130.Teacher Attitudes Toward Dyslexia: Effects on Teacher Expectations and the Academic Achievement of Students With Dyslexia Lisette Hornstra1. the Netherlands Radboud University Nijmegen. 1997).com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. it is of obvious importance that other risk factors that may further slow their achievement be identified.e. a label of “dyslexia” may evoke a negative attitude in some teachers that may cause them to have lower expectations for such students and therefore treat them differently than other students (i. the Netherlands Corresponding Author: Lisette Hornstra. 1018 VZ Amsterdam.The attitudes of 30 regular education teachers toward dyslexia were determined using both an implicit measure and an explicit. One such risk factor could be low teacher expectations for students with dyslexia (Clark. However. 2007). educational success of inclusion may depend on many factors. Self-reported attitudes of the teachers toward dyslexia did not relate to any of the outcome measures. government policy in the Netherlands. as well as beliefs that students with special educational needs would benefit educationally. Underlying reasons are concerns about these students being segregated from their nondisabled peers. Eddie Denessen2. not only the disability of the student but also the expertise and the willingness of the teacher to attend to the needs of these at-risk students (Lindsay.com/journalsPermissions.com Abstract The present study examined teacher attitudes toward dyslexia and the effects of these attitudes on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia compared to students without learning disabilities. self-report attitude measures. 2013 .1177/0022219409355479 http://journaloflearningdisabilities .. the Netherlands 3 Eindhoven University of Technology. Teachers have been shown to vary in their attitudes toward inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich.
Teacher attitudes may thus have an indirect effect on student achievement through Downloaded from ldx. that is. and these expectations may—in turn—impact student achievement. However. teacher attitudes toward dyslexia may underlie teacher expectations for such students and thus produce an indirect association between teacher attitudes and student achievement mediated by teacher expectations. which means that teachers may be forced to perceive such students in a more differentiated manner than students from other stigmatized groups. As a result. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) students. reading.e. and presumably. That is. & Soffin (1995). & Smith. math). 1999. 2013 .. Biased teacher perceptions of students can affect just how teachers interact with their students and also can influence the curricular and instructional opportunities offered to students. 2009. have been found to be significantly stronger for stigmatized groups of Possible Effects on Student Achievement As already mentioned. than for children from the general school population (Jussim & Harber.. 2000). 2005. This may also hold for students diagnosed as having dyslexia. 2005. 2007).. Stigmatization means that a negative attitude is adopted with regard to a group in general as opposed to basing one’s judgments on the specific characteristics of individuals (Dovidio. Negative group evaluations or stigmatization can bias teacher perceptions of individual students (Jussim & Harber. They may also affect expectations teachers hold for their students with learning disabilities. to what extent can low teacher expectations of students with dyslexia be attributed to the attitudes on the part of their teachers? The extent to which the label “dyslexia” affects teacher expectations of their students is unknown at this point. & McGhie-Richmond. 1997). teachers may hold lower expectancies for such students than for students without any learning disabilities.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. The result could thus be relatively accurate expectations with regard to those students with dyslexia rather than inaccurate expectations based on group stereotyping. Jordan & Stanovich. Teacher Expectations and Teacher Attitudes A long tradition of research on teacher expectations has shown teacher expectations with regard to the academic abilities of students to exert small but significant effects on the achi evement of students (e. it is possible that teacher expectations can affect the achievement of students with dyslexia. Palumbo. Jussim & Harber. 2001). Jussim. Teachers who considered learning disabilities to be permanent characteristics of students interacted with their at-risk students less frequently and at a lower cognitive level compared to teachers with more “flexible” beliefs regarding learning disabilities. others considered themselves to be responsible for all of their students’ achievement. Schwartz. Nelson. Madon et al. Madon. Major. 1997). that is. students with dyslexia by definition show unexpectedly low achievement in certain academic areas but not others (Lyon. The effects of teacher expectations. which can lead to lower teacher expectations for individual students with dyslexia and possibly lower student achievement as a result. That is.g. Jordan. Unknown at this point is to what extent differences between teachers in their attitudes toward dyslexia may result in differences in the expectations they hold for their students with dyslexia. moreover. Paterson. Within the context of the present study. spelling).. teacher attitudes toward dyslexia in general may influence their expectations regarding individual students with dyslexia.sagepub. not all teachers are alike. some possibly negative effects of the label “dyslexia” can be expected to occur for the specific domain(s) in which the student is experiencing difficulties (i. the application of a group label to a specific individual can influence how the perceiver judges the person in question (i. & Eccles. On one hand. regardless of any disability. expectations). Beliefs of teachers regarding students’ disabilities may thus be affecting their instructional practices. Of course. Manis.516 (e. Possibly. Teacher expectations can be defined as judgments about individual students regarding their academic potential. This could also possibly occur in other academic domains as well (e. & Crocker. Students with dyslexia may also be susceptible to group stigmatization as a result of the label “dyslexia”. low expectations can indeed arise as a result of labeling effects or group stereotyping. teachers will differ in the extent to which they may stigmatize their students with dyslexia. Although some teachers believed learning disabilities to be a permanent characteristic of a student. In other words. 2005). including ethnic minority and low achieving children. lower teacher expectations for certain groups of students may be not only the result of accurate judgments of individual students but also the result of group stigmatization and stereotyping by teachers.. the label “dyslexia” may lead to overly or mistakenly low teacher expectations for such students. children with dyslexia could also be stigmatized as a group. Chatman. Madon.g. Whereas expectations reflect perceptions of individual students. On the other hand. Differences in the expectations of teachers for children with dyslexia versus children without learning disabilities can certainly be explained by accurate perception of the relatively lower levels of performance displayed by children with dyslexia in reading and spelling.. 2000). According to Jussim. 1996). attitudes reflect stereotyped judgments about groups and can be considered a characteristic of the person holding that attitude. interactions between those two types of teachers with their students differed. Many different sources of group labeling exist (Jussim.g.e. which may then—in turn— affect the academic achievement of students (Alvidrez & Weinstein.
In social psychology. 2008). A distinction between teacher-dependent measures of achievement and teacher-independent measures of achievement should. which can evoke a tendency to report social desirable Downloaded from ldx. which has been shown to be a valid method for assessment of implicit attitudes (Wittenbrink & Schwarz. although such measures can contribute to our knowledge of teacher attitudes and the effects of such on not only teacher expectations for different groups of students but also student achievement. Gschwendner. it is more likely that motivational factors will be evoked—provided there is an opportunity to do so—and thus influence the expression of one’s attitudes.. 2007. 517 attitudes or behavior (Gawronski. the essay was unjustly graded more negatively (Fazio & Olson. The Measurement of Teacher Attitudes To our knowledge. be made. One possible explanation for the low correspondence between implicit and explicit measures is offered by the model of Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants of attitude-behavior relations (MODE model) put forth by Fazio and Towles-Schwen (1999) to explain how attitudes relate to behavior. which refers to the tendency to interpret information in a manner consistent with existing beliefs or expectations (Nickerson. will be examined. Besides social desirability. & Peters. and finally to formulate an answer in a way that corresponds with what is asked (Jobe.e. 2003). teacher attitudes). as stigmatization of students with dyslexia could be for teachers. 2000). Negative attitudes on the part of teachers can conceivably lead to the differential treatment of students with increased differences in academic achievement as a result. as a result of the operation of a confirmation bias. Low correlations have repeatedly been found between explicit and implicit measures. 2001). In several experimental studies. 1994). & Scmitt.g. To determine if differences in the achievement of students with dyslexia versus students without learning disabilities can be ascribed—at least in part—to group stereotyping (i. Both social desirability and unawareness of one’s own attitudes may affect the validity of explicit measures. Strategic answering is one of the problems that may occur (Jobe. Teachers may interact both qualitatively and quantitatively differently with students from stigmatized groups compared to nonstigmatized groups of students (Brophy. Fazio & Olson. Negative teacher attitudes can therefore possibly lead to unjustly low achievement ratings for students with dyslexia. educational studies have always employed self-report measures when examining teacher attitudes regarding stigmatized groups..com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5.sagepub. & Kardes. Mistakes can occur during any of these steps. Because of the aforementioned concerns of explicit measures. especially when topics are socially controversial. “implicit attitude measures” have been developed to gain insight into stigmatization processes. 2000). group stereotyping has indeed been shown to influence the grading of student essays and other scholastic tasks (e. 2007). Babad. These self-report measures can also be referred to as “explicit measures. retrieve this information from memory. In this model. Wittenbrink & Schwarz. 1986. In addition. 2005). licit measures requires respondents to be the use of exp fully aware of their attitudes. expectations teachers hold. teacher expectations may thus mediate the relation between teacher attitudes and student achievement. When a domain is more sensitive or more controversial. 1998). decide on the accuracy of this information.” However. Schwarz. Implicit measures commonly rely on response time measurement. A confirmation bias. For example. 1985. 2007). especially when they concerned controversial topics. These implicit measures have gained enormous popularity in almost every field of psychology during the past couple of years (Hofmann. Among teachers. teacher attitudes may also be directly associated with student achievement.Hornstra et al. it might be controversial to express a distinctly negative attitude toward children with learning disabilities. 2003). Rosenthal. In a similar manner. the question of whether these effects may possibly be mediated by teacher expectations will also be considered. This may especially occur when the questions concern controversial topics. Schwarz & Oyserman. may explain these findings. Self-report measures require respondents to understand the questions. there is a need for other ways to collect data (Schaeffer. Powell. determine which information is asked for. however. Le. these mea sures do not always produce valid outcomes. Sanbonmatsu. which is not always the case (Schwarz. 1985. 2008). 2000. To our knowledge. When a person is both motivated to deliberate and has the opportunity to do so. These measures assess the more or less automatic evaluative responses of the individual to an attitude object and can therefore circumvent many concerns about the operation of social desirability and/or strategic responding (Fazio. and an implicit measure of teacher attitudes may therefore constitute a more suitable measure than an explicit self-report measure of teacher attitudes. In other words. it is suggested that the strength of the correlation between implicit and explicit attitude measures may depend on the motivation and the opportunity of individuals to engage in effortful reflection. this might result in strategic responding on a questionnaire. when teachers were led to believe that an essay was written by an ethnic minority student. LeBel. Thereafter. Teacher-dependent measures are the grades or achievement ratings provided by teachers on a task. 2013 . teacher-independent measures of academic achievement might also be affected by negative teacher attitudes. Gawronski. implicit attitude measures have not yet been applied within the field of educational science.
Fazio & Olson. when in front of the class on a daily basis. Johnson. Towles-Schwen & Fazio.. In other words. & Howard. and the assumption underlying evaluative priming is that many or most of the associations between concepts are actually stored in human memory. 2000).e.. moreover.sagepub. Furthermore. positive target words. When a respondent is thus presented with a word or picture (i. positive or negative) attitude in memory. Method Participants The present sample consisted of 30 second-grade through sixth-grade regular education teachers (9 male. Teacher expectations can also differ for boys versus girls—particularly with regard to mathematics education (Jussim et al. & Vargas. an implicit measure of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia may indeed constitute a better predictor of not only teacher expectations but also the achievement outcomes of students with dyslexia. 1996. we nevertheless decided to compare this measure to a self-report measure of attitudes toward dyslexia. a so-called attitude object or prime). Teachers with negative attitudes toward dyslexia may find it socially unacceptable to report such attitudes on a self-report measure. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) factors may also play a role. 1996). 2013 . Does the association between teacher attitudes toward dyslexia and the achievement of students with dyslexia appear to be significantly mediated by teacher expectations? An implicit measure of teacher attitudes was judged to be a suitable measure in light of the fewer validity problems associated with such a measure relative to explicit measures. Given that the use of implicit attitude measures is relatively new in the field of education research. presentation of the prime will then facilitate responding with regard to the evaluative connotations of negative target words and thereby result in a shorter reaction time on average relative to neutral primes (Fazio & Olson.g. this can activate an evaluative (i. Many studies in which such a priming measure has been used have found. and teacher perceptions of their students can be biased to an increased extent. Kawakami. Johnson. 2007). which implicit measures are believed to avoid.g. the implicit attitudes of the respondents to be predictive of subsequent behavior (e. these seem to be more suitable instruments to use in research on stigmatization.e. Many studies on the link between explicit and implicit attitude measures have focused on racial prejudice and stigmatization of ethnic minorities. prime) facilitates the response to negative target words or. which may affect the outcomes of the present study and will therefore be taken into account. potentially biased teacher perceptions based on socioeconomic status (SES) or gender differences were therefore also taken into account in the present study but were by no means of primary concern (see Note 2). Evaluative Priming Different types of implicit attitude measures are available today. One such measure is eva luative priming. Fazio & Olson. to also show higher rates of either internalizing or externalizing behavior problems than individuals without reading disabilities (Willcutt & Pennington.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. alternatively. the following specific research questions were thus examined: 1.518 The weak relationship between explicit and implicit measures of attitudes thus appears to support the claim that exp licit measures regarding socially controversial topics may evoke socially desirable answering behavior. & Madon. The diagnostic label of “behavioral disorder” can thus have a stigmatizing effect as well (Jussim et al. Sirin. 2006). However. In other words. 1997. the priming task measures whether exposure to an attitude object (i. the label of “behavioral disorder” may also be a source of differential teacher expectancies. Von Hippel. 2005). additional Downloaded from ldx. As for behavioral disorders.e. Wittenbrink. 2003.. Specific Research Questions In the present study. Most of these measures involve the recording of res ponse times using a computer.. Considerable research has shown children with reading disabilities. Possibly Confounding Factors In the study of the influence of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on teacher expectations and student achievement. That is. 2003. Because implicit measures were better able to predict consequent behavior toward people from ethnic minority groups (e. To what extent do teacher attitudes toward dyslexia predict teacher expectations for individual students with dyslexia? 2. To what extent do teacher attitudes toward dyslexia predict the achievement of students with dyslexia? 3. Sekaquaptewa. It was found that self-reported attitudes toward ethnic minorities often did not correspond to implicitly measured attitudes. Eccles.. 21 female) from 16 schools in the south and middle of the Netherlands. 1997). When a person has a negative attitude toward a particular prime of an attitude object. these same teachers may not be particularly motivated to hide their opinions or have the opportunity to mask their attitudes. teacher expectations and—as a consequence at least in part—the academic achievement levels of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have been found to be lower than those for other children on average (Jussim.. 2003.. for example. Dovidio. 2000).
and Greve (2005). The participants were then asked to indicate the word’s evaluative connotation by pushing one key on the laptop to indicate positive and a different key to indicate negative. the next four blocks were test blocks. the difference score for the negative target word trials following a dyslexia prime versus a neutral prime was statistically significantly negatively correlated with the difference score for the positive target word trials following a dyslexia prime versus a neutral prime. as those teachers who had no such students in their classes were excluded from the sample.83. Heyman.sagepub. The implicit negative attitude score was then determined for each participant by calculating the average Downloaded from ldx. Each teacher was asked to select ten or more students for inclusion in the present study. 2001. and (4) neutral prime—negative word. and they had an average of 14 years of teaching experience. the study sample contained 307 students: 46 with dyslexia (27 male. as inclusion of all students could be too time-consuming for the teachers. Of the students with dyslexia. The first block was a practice block. Kulfanek. Preacher.and second-year university students in psychology and educational science.. horrible). 519 reaction time difference for the negative target word trials following a dyslexia prime versus a neutral prime. priming combinations): (1) dyslexia prime—positive word. I could be a good teacher” was adjusted to “Children with dyslexia could become good teachers.. either a neutral string of letters or the prime word “dyslexia. which resulted in a teacher questionnaire with a total of 14 items. 82 from a middleSES background. pleasant. Twelve students from the reference group were diagnosed as having such. Some of the questionnaire items were derived from the Self-Perception of a Learning Disability Scale (SPLD.g.” The teacher questionnaire was then pilot tested among 125 preservice teachers. Priming tasks have been found to be a valid type of implicit attitude measures (Cunningham. and this indicated the extent to which the teacher’s categorization of a negative target word was facilitated by the occurrence of a dyslexia prime as opposed to a neutral prime. the difference score was higher. 76 were from a low-SES background. as expected. those students for whom the teacher had a strong suspicion of dyslexia were considered the same as those with an official diagnosis. Two Cronbach’s alphas were calculated: one for the “dyslexia prime–negative word” trials. 17 were from a low-SES background. which showed a reliability of .89. In the end. The formulations of the items appeared to resemble those for other explicit attitude measures such as the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay. The task was administered to the teachers using a laptop. When the average reaction time for the trials with the dyslexia prime was greater than the average reaction time for the trials with a neutral prime. All blocks encompassed four different types of trials (i.Hornstra et al. and one for the “neutral prime–negative word” trials. 2007). The priming task was pilot tested among 38 first. 7 were considered suitable for the creation of a teacher questionnaire. the item “When I grow up. which measures the attitudes of children with SLDs toward themselves.” was presented very briefly (250 ms) to the teacher. 2007). which validly assesses the explicit Measurements Implicit teacher attitudes. 16 from a middle-SES background. To start with. Trials 2 and 4 were used to calculate the implicit negative attitude score. The result was a questionnaire with 9 items to which the teachers were asked to respond using a Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). 2013 . Implicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia were measured using a newly developed evaluative priming task that assesses automatic evaluative responses to an object or prime (Wittenbrink. & Banaji. Eight students from the group of students with dyslexia were also diagnosed as having a behavioral disorder. 148 female). After presentation of the neutral prime or dyslexia prime. A higher score on the self-report measure of teacher attitudes indicates a less negative attitude toward dyslexia. Of the students in the reference group. The explicit self-report measure of teacher attitudes involved the completion of a questionnaire. 1990). the trial blocks were treated as items for this purpose.e. 19 female) and a reference group of 261 students without a learning disability (113 male.5 standard deviations above or below the participant’s average reaction time were omitted. Wittenbrink.” Additional items were developed. the participants were next presented a target word that has a general evaluative meaning (e. and 70 from a high-SES background. Each participant was presented five blocks of 20 randomly ordered trials. Given that the present study is about teacher perceptions of students with dyslexia. There were some clear indications of validity for the scale. To assess the extent to which “dyslexia” activates a negative attitude. 1986). Their mean age was 38 years. For the calculation of the attitude score for a participant. (3) neutral prime— positive word. All of the teachers included in the sample had at least one child with a diagnosis of dyslexia or a strong teacher suspicion of dyslexia in their class. Explicit teacher attitudes. Examples of these additional items are “I am very understanding when children with dyslexia need extra help” and “I feel that the government should not spend too much money on facilities for children with dyslexia. For example. which showed a reliability of . Results indicated good face validity. The reliability of the priming task was calculated using the method of Wentura. and 8 from a high-SES background. and several items that did not show sufficient reliability were omitted. (2) dyslexia prime—negative word. A higher score thus indicated a more negative attitude toward dyslexia. all of those trials that involved an incorrect categorization of the target or a reaction time that was 2.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. Of the original 25 items.
the teachers were informed about the purpose of the study. high school or senior vocational education). 2000). the scale items represented a single. For inclusion in the multilevel regression analyses.g.” these students were not excluded from the sample but were accounted for by controlling for the presence of behavioral disorders in the analyses. elementary school or junior vocational education). or high (i. unidimensional underlying construct. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) Procedure A random sample of second-grade through sixth-grade elementary school teachers in the middle and south of the Netherlands were sent a letter of invitation to participate in the study. “This student will have a successful academic career” or “He/she is a smart student”). college education or higher). this information was then recoded as low (i. the teachers had the children in their classes complete a one-page short story starting with the sentence: “If I were the boss of the Netherlands . the dyslexia. In addition. the data were analyzed with multilevel modeling techniques (Lee. an appointment was made to visit each teacher at his or her school after-school hours to administer the priming task measure of implicit attitude on a laptop. the teachers indicated their expectations with regard to the student in question. The letter stated that participation was voluntary and not all teachers within the same school had to participate. and SES Downloaded from ldx. Teacher-dependent measure of student achievement. 1990).” A free writing assignment was chosen to examine the teachers’ subjective grading of students with dyslexia versus students without dyslexia or any other learning disability.. and each of the participating teachers was given a €10 gift certificate. Data Analyses Because of the hierarchical structure of the data. To determine the SES for each child.e. 16 of whom had a GLD or SLD other than dyslexia (e. dyscalculia) and were therefore excluded from the sample.. These tests from the Dutch National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO) are administered to students in the Netherlands each year to monitor student progress. The teachers were told not to give the children any further instruction with regard to the content or length of the story. . behavioral disorder. The students’ most recent national standard spelling and mathematics test scores were obtained from teacher records as a teacher-independent measure of achievement. middle (i. the scores were standardized for each grade. The student sample originally consisted of 323 students. Two-level analyses were performed with students clustered within classrooms (see Note 3). Control variables. using the computer program MLwiN 2. Once the students completed their stories. Those teachers who agreed to participate were then sent a package that contained the questionnaire. the SES and gender of the student.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5.. The reliability of the scale was also sufficient with a Cronbach’s alpha of .. which means that the grading of such an assignment can reflect possible biases on the part of the teacher (Norton. the teachers were asked to rate the general quality of the stories along a 10-point scale. After the teachers had completed all of the relevant forms and returned the package. 2013 . the teachers were asked to judge various academic characteristics of the relevant students along a Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (not applicable) to 5 (totally applicable).These variables then served as control variables in the analyses for this study.e. To measure how teachers rated the achievement of their students with dyslexia in comparison to the reference group of students without learning disabilities. the writing task. and the effects of teacher attitudes and expectations for such students may differ from those for a group of students with dyslexia. There were six items (e. This group of students was too small to examine separately.96. It is virtually impossible to objectively grade such a free writing assignment.0 (Rabash et al. . The teachers were asked to indicate the gender of each child and those students who were diagnosed with a behavioral disorder. The scale was found to be highly reliable. which allowed the academic achievement of the students to be analyzed across grades. Teacher-independent measure of academic achievement. Multilevel regression analyses resemble multiple regression analyses but do not suffer from the same conceptual and statistical problems that occur when nested data are analyzed using multiple regression techniques (Hox. the teachers completed an evaluation form for each of the students selected for inclusion in the present study. .g. Thereafter. the factorial validity was also found to be good. The significance of the coefficients for the different independent variables was tested using Wald tests (z tests). and an evaluation form for each student. On the evaluation form. Given that a label of “behavioral disorder” co-occurred in some instances with a label of “dyslexia. In the pilot study. the student’s grade on the writing task.sagepub.520 attitudes of people toward Black people. the teachers were asked to indicate the highest educational level of the parents.e.. The models were estimated using the iterative generalized least squares method. More specifically. To measure the expectations of the teachers with regard to their students. 2000). The set level of significance was 5%. 2002)..72. Teacher expectations. Although different versions of the tests are administered in each grade. The independent variables were grand mean centered prior to their entrance into the multilevel models. and whether the student was diagnosed with a behavioral disorder. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0. the teachers were asked to indicate those students who were strongly suspected to have a learning disability or officially diagnosed with a learning disability and to indicate which learning disability that was.
Table 3 shows the correlations between the teacherdependent measure of achievement (i. the teachers can be seen to have slightly negative implicit attitudes toward dyslexia on average.00 Table 3.06 Total group SD 0. Thereafter.38*** — Descriptive Statistics The means and standard deviations for teacher expectations.62 Maximum 153. which shows the teachers report highly positive attitudes toward dyslexia on average.32*** of Writing Achievement Spelling — Achievement Math Achievement * p < . achievement ratings: z = -2. two dummy variables were created to represent the SES categories (middle SES and high SES. p = . and Total Group (N = 307) Reference group M Expectations Teacher Ratings of Writing Achievement Spelling Achievement Math Achievement 3.74.96 variables were entered as dummy variables.96 M 3. their ratings of student achievement on the writing task. average differences were found.32 0. The two measures thus produce very different results.04 –0. with low SES functioning as a reference group). the mean Students with Dyslexia (n = 46) Teacher Ratings — .41 3.01 Minimum -122. the implicit attitude measure was standardized. In the following.22 0. The inequality of numbers of participants approximately reflects the prevalence of dyslexia.97 1. Correlations between Student-Level Achievement Variables Teacher Ratings of Writing Spelling Math Achievement Achievement Achievement .00. and teacher-dependent and teacher-independent measures of the academic achievement of students were compared for a group of students with dyslexia and a reference group of students without any learning disabilities. Teacher Ratings of Writing Achievement.11 SD 0.92. score of the teachers on the explicit self-report measure was relatively high.05.. The descriptive statistics for the teacher-level variables.98 1. For both dyslexia and behavioral disorder. 4.80). math achievement: z = -1. the associations between implicit and explicit measures of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia.99. p = . p = .com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Teacher Expectations. 521 Table 1.90 –0.99 0. p = . teacher exp ectations for individual students.73 0.26 0.97 Students with dyslexia M 2. the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for a number of the variables will first be considered. and standardized tests of student academic achievement are presented separately for the two groups of students in Table 1.49** — .Hornstra et al.54.00 SD 64.00. *** p < . the achievement ratings on the writing task) and the teacher-independent Downloaded from ldx.00.67 6.24*** .001.01). namely their implicit and explicit attitudes toward dyslexia. Descriptive Statistics of the Teacher-Level Variables (N = 30 teachers) Variable Implicit attitude measure (in ms) Explicit attitude measure M 8.e. As can be seen.89 0.63 0. Dyslexia Group (N =46).00 0. This is confirmed by the nonsignificant correlation between the two teacher attitude measures (r = .53 Results In this study. Spelling Achievement and Math Achievement for the Reference Group (N = 261).05.29 0.33 5.56 6. are presented in Table 2.25 SD 0.sagepub.12 . ** p < . spelling achievement: z = -6.77 1. 2013 .01. Given that a score of 0 ms on the implicit attitude measure indicates a neutral attitude. In contrast.21 0.38* of Writing Achievement Spelling — Achievement Math Achievement Students from the Reference Group (n = 261) Teacher Ratings — . the results of the multilevel regression models for the achievement measures and the teacher expectancies are presented. Table 2. The results of multilevel comparisons showed consistent and statistically significant differences for those students with dyslexia versus those students from the reference group on all four of the aforementioned student-level variables in favor of the reference group (teacher expectations: z = -4. one dummy variable was created. but virtually no differences in the standard deviations for the groups.97 6. p = . To improve the interpretability of the results.96 0.
. The main effect of dyslexia was also statistically significant. for the teacher observed to hold the most negative attitude. the more negative impact of the implicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on the achievement ratings provided for the students with dyslexia versus the students from the reference group is depicted. The predictive power of the explicit measure of teacher attitudes on the achievement ratings provided by the teachers was thus the same for students with dyslexia and students from the reference group. z = -0. The intraclass correlation was 0.e. the teacher observed to hold the most negative attitude toward dyslexia in our data can be compared to the teacher observed to hold the least negative attitude. the interaction of dyslexia and the implicit Downloaded from ldx.23. students with dyslexia not only attained lower achievement ratings on the writing task than students from the reference group but also were found to be given even lower scores when their teachers held more negative implicit attitudes toward dyslexia.. The interaction of dyslexia and the explicit self-report measure of teacher attitudes on the achievement ratings was nonsignificant (b = .569).57. Only the results for models involving pection the implicit attitude measure are reported.26. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) measure of teacher attitudes on the achievement ratings was statistically significant for teacher ratings of student achievement (b = -. Implicit negative teacher attitude toward dyslexia did not exert a significant main effect on the achievement ratings provided by the teachers. which shows 21% of the variance in the ratings of writing achievements provided by the teachers to occur at the level of the teacher and 79% at the level of the student. Children from middle-and higher SES backgrounds received higher achievement ratings than children from lower SES backgrounds.795). a sig nificant interaction effect can be expected. spelling achievement. In such a manner. the predicted achievement rating for the writing task differed a maximum 1. Adding the interaction effect reduced the student-level variance by 2. The third step in each model involved the entrance of the independent variables of dyslexia and either the implicit or explicit measures of teacher attitudes. The size of this cross-level interaction was further evaluated via multiplication of the regression coefficient as estimated in model 1B of Table 4 by the range for the implicit attitude scores. The effects of the implicit and explicit measures of teacher attitudes on the achievement ratings provided by the teachers for the students with dyslexia were examined. This was not found to be the case for the students in the reference group (b = -. teacher expectations.sagepub.2%.05 to 2. 2013 . That is.61 points lower for the students with dyslexia than for the students from the reference group was predicted. p = .45. and SES were entered. The outcome of this cal culation indicates the maximum differential effect of implicit teacher attitudes on achievement ratings.26. More specifically.05.28. standardized spelling and math scores) for those students with dyslexia and those from the reference group separately. The difference in the achievement ratings provided by the teachers for those students with dyslexia versus those students from the reference group increased when the teacher held a more negative attitude toward dyslexia. Effects of teacher attitudes on teacher ratings of writing achievements.522 measures of achievement (i. which shows the implicit attitudes of the teachers not to affect the achievement ratings for all students but only those with dyslexia instead. Stated differently. In Figure 1. z = . The multilevel models were constructed in a similar manner for the different dependent variables (i. The intercept-only model containing the dependent variable and no predictors whatsoever was first constructed to estimate the variance in the dependent variable at both the teacher and student level. an achievement rating that was 1.21.95 along a scale of from 1 to 10 for the students with dyslexia versus the students from the reference group. achievement ratings. The statistics for the multilevel analyses of the teacher ratings of writing achievements are reported in Table 4 (models 1A and 1B). The standardized scores on the implicit attitude mea sure ranged from -2. According to this calculation. To answer the research questions. p = . In contrast to the findings for the explicit measure of teacher attitudes. it had to be determined whether the cross-level interactions proved statistically significant. which again shows the children with dyslexia to be given lower achievement ratings by their teachers on average. if differences between the students with dyslexia and the reference group on the dependent variables are associated with differences in the attitudes of the teachers toward dyslexia. the cross-level interaction between student dyslexia and either the explicit or the implicit measure of teacher attitudes was added.e.026). Further ins of the results shows several control variables also to have statistically significant effects. behavioral disorder. Given that the small teacher sample size could lead to problems with the estimation of the random slope effects of the teacher-level variables. for the Multilevel Regression Models Multilevel models were used to investigate the ability of the implicit and explicit measures of teacher attitudes to predict teacher expectations and the academic achievement of the students with dyslexia and the reference group. in the fourth step. Each of these steps resulted in a model that could be compared to the previous one. and math achievement). the control variables of gender. z = -2. Finally.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. Girls generally received hig her achievement ratings than boys on the writing task. p = . to determine the added value of subsequent predictors. In the second step. all reported effects are fixed and include just two random parameters: the (residual) variance at the two levels.
01. Implicit Negative Teacher Attitude Toward Dyslexia = Students With Dyslexia = Students From the Reference Group Figure 1.13)** 0.82 (0.15)*** -0.53 Deviance difference 4. Multilevel Models for the Effects of Implicit Negative Teacher Attitudes on Teacher Ratings of Writing Achievement (models 1A and 1B) and Spelling Achievement (models 2A and 2B) Model: Model 1A Main effects of Dyslexia and Negative Attitude Coeff. The statistics of this multilevel analysis are reported in Predicted Achievement Rating Downloaded from ldx.11) -0.17)* 0.09)*** 0.13)* 0.19)** -0.06)*** 0.06)*** Variance at teacher level (σu2) 1.18)*** 0.66 (0. z = . z = -2.14)*** 0.23 (0.14 (0.02 Deviance 744. SE Model 2A Main effects of Dyslexia and Negative Attitude Coeff.857). Table 4.18)*** 0.14) -0.19 (0.02 (0.32) -0.sagepub. This was not found to be the case for those students from the reference group (b = -. z = 1. There was no statistically significant interaction for the association between the teachers’ explicit attitudes toward dyslexia and the spelling achievement of the students when those students with dyslexia and those from the reference group were compared (b = .001. Regression lines for the effect of implicit negative teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on teacher ratings of writing achievement for students with dyslexia and students from the reference group teacher observed to hold the most positive attitude.11) Implicit attitude Interaction -0.Hornstra et al.15)*** -0. ** p < . the intraclass correlation was found to be 0.21 (0.82 (0.17)* 0.14)** 0.18. p = .44 (0. SE 523 Model 2B Interaction Dyslexia x Negative Attitude Coeff.86 666. 2013 .20)*** 6.06)*** Variance at student level (σe2) Explained variance – student level 0.95* (df = 1) 6. Effects of teacher attitudes on spelling achievement.011).21)* 0.98 (0.20)*** -0.17 (0. The interaction of student dyslexia and the teachers’ implicit attitudes toward dyslexia on spelling achievement was found to be statistically significant (b = -. Those students with dyslexia scored not only lower on the spelling achievement tests than students from the reference group but also showed even lower scores when their teachers held more negative implicit attitudes toward dyslexia.64 (0.63 (0.39 (0.21 (0.34 points higher for the students with dyslexia than for the students from the reference group was predicted.15)** 0.40 (0. In other words.06)*** 0.12 (0.21 (0.14)*** Dyslexia -0.56.14) 0.55. SE Fixed Effects Intercept 6.13) * Middle SES High SES 0.59 (0. *** p < .17 (0.79 (0.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5.30 (0.42 (0.02 0. p = .47 (0.05.116).09)*** 0.58 660.54 (0.10)* 0.77 (0.44.10)* Girl Behavioral disorder -0.05* (df = 1) * p < . When the effects of explicit and implicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on the spelling achievement of the students were examined.18.40 (0.18)** Random Components 0.19) -0. the influence of the teachers’ explicit attitudes toward dyslexia on spelling achievement was the same for the two groups.32) -0.41 (0.02.53.13)** 0.05 (0.44 (0.81 739.41 (0.20)* -0.16) -0. p = .09 (0.00 (0. an achievement rating that was 0.45 (0.22 (0.18)** -0. SE Model 1B Interaction Dyslexia x Negative Attitude Coeff.19)** -0.24 (0.14 (0.63 (0. The association between the implicit attitudes of teachers toward dyslexia and student achievement can thus be considered quite substantial.
Depending on the implicit attitudes of the teachers toward dyslexia. no main effect of implicit teacher attitudes was found). This finding shows the effects of the teachers’ explicit attitudes toward dyslexia on their expectations for individual students to be largely the same for the two groups of students. p = . Those students reported to have a behavioral disorder showed lower spelling achievement than other students. the predicted spelling achievement was 0.61. the intraclass correlation was found to be 0. the interaction of student dyslexia and the teachers’ implicit attitudes toward dyslexia on spelling achievement is depicted and can be seen to show implicit negative teacher attitudes toward dyslexia to exert a stronger negative effect on the spelling achievement of those students with dyslexia than those students from the reference group. the interaction effect of student dyslexia and the implicit measure of teacher attitudes on teacher expectations was not statistically significant (b = -.00 −2. The interaction of the implicit measure of teacher attitudes and dyslexia on the math achievement of the students was also not statistically significant (b = -.sagepub.0 −1. the students’ spelling achievement differed a maximum 1.05. In the next set of analyses. the possibility that teacher expectations might affect the different measures of student Downloaded from ldx.190). teacher expectations could not mediate the statistically significant effects of implicit teacher attitudes on the performance ratings provided by the teachers and the spelling achievement of the students. z = -.20 Implicit Negative Teacher Attitude Towards Dyslexia = Students With Dyslexia = Students From the Reference Group Figure 2. whether explicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia differentially affected the teacher expectations with Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) 1.00 Predicted Spelling Achievement .3%.08 standard deviations higher for the students with dyslexia than for the students from the reference group.10 . neither the explicit nor the implicit measures of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia differentially affected the math achievement of the students with dyslexia and the students from the reference group.826). The interaction of student dyslexia and the explicit measure of teacher attitudes on teacher expectations was not statistically significant (b = . Nevertheless.09. In light of the finding that the implicit attitudes of teachers toward dyslexia did not predict their expectations with regard to individual students with dyslexia.872). Effects of teacher attitudes on math achievement. Implicit negative teacher attitudes did not exert a significant effect in general on the students’ spelling achievement (i.00 −2.82 standard deviations lower than the spelling achievement of students from the reference group. Regression lines for the effect of implicit negative teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on spelling achievement for students with dyslexia and students from the reference group regard to individual students was considered. In other words. The interaction effect of dyslexia and the implicit attitude measure reduced the student-level variance by 2.0 . Likewise.16.0 . which shows those students with dyslexia to generally have lower spelling achievement than those students from the reference group.00 −1. p = . The intraclass correlation of teacher expectations was . In Figure 2.31.. Instead. Those students from higher SES backgrounds showed higher spelling achievement than those from lower SES backgrounds. Effects of teacher attitudes on teacher expectations.22. Furthermore.07.08. That is.524 Table 4 (models 2A and 2B). the spelling achievement of students with dyslexia was predicted to be 1. More specifically. The results did not show a statistically significant interaction for explicit teacher attitudes and dyslexia on the math achievement of the students (b = -. only the spelling achievement of those students with dyslexia was affected by a negative implicit attitude toward dyslexia on the part of the teacher. for the teacher observed to hold the most negative attitude.e.12. p = . When the relations between the teacher attitudes toward dyslexia and the math achievement of the students were examined. Effects of expectations on achievement ratings and academic achievement. for the teacher observed to hold the most positive attitude. the main effect of dyslexia was found to be statistically significant. z = -1. z = . The results in Table 3 also show several of the control variables to have a statistically significant effect on the students’ spelling achievement.90 standard deviations for those with dyslexia versus those from the reference group. z = -.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. p = . 2013 .271). the effects of the teachers’ implicit attitudes toward dyslexia on their expectations for individual students were largely the same for those students with dyslexia and those students from the reference group.22.
1994). p = . and observational studies along these lines might provide greater insight into the verbal and nonverbal interactions between teachers and students with dyslexia by which implicit teacher attitudes affect student achievement. which may suggest that they are more likely than the explicit attitude scores to reflect the actual attitudes of the teachers toward dyslexia..06.05. This assumption is supported by the particularly high mean score of the teachers on the explicit attitude measure. there appears to be Discussion In the present study. In addition. teacher attitudes must somehow be communicated to students whose achievement is then affected.441).Hornstra et al.12. 1999). 2013 . This may hold for students with dyslexia during reading or spelling instruction in particular. Nonverbal teacher behavior could thus play an important mediating role in the effects of teacher attitudes on the achievement of students with dyslexia. Contrary to the results for the spelling achievement of the students with dyslexia. z = . This may also hold for the nonverbal reactions of teachers in daily classroom situations where the teacher must deal with many students at the same time and often has to react fast. Furthermore. teachers may express less warmth toward students from groups for which they have more negative attitudes.397). teacher expectations were now entered as a predictor variable.77. which—as pointed out by Dovidio. a significant association between teacher expectations and math achievement was detected (b = .24.68. achievement has been examined. p = . Whereas the implicit attitude measure predicted the teacher-dependent achievement ratings and the spelling achievement of the students with dyslexia. A direct and statistically significant association between teacher expectations and the achievement ratings provided by the teachers was detected (b = .04. the underlying process remains unclear. Rather than teacher attitudes. 1998). This effect can be assumed to reflect a confirmation bias (Nickerson. Students with dyslexia were found to receive lower teacher ratings of writing achievement from their teachers when their teacher held a more negative implicit attitude toward dyslexia. That is.57.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. This association was not influenced by student dyslexia (b = -. a direct and statistically significant association between teacher expectations and spelling achievement was detected (b = .sagepub. appear to predict mostly verbal behavior. 525 to rate the achievement of students in keeping with this negative attitude. however.810). was also clearly affected by implicit negative teacher attitudes toward dyslexia. explicit attitude mea sures. which showed highly positive exp licit attitudes.71. z = . in contrast. In line with the MODE model. These possible associations were examined in multilevel models that were comparable to the previously described models and included the same control variables. For the observed effects to occur. z = . 1996). p < . p < .001) and again was found not to be moderated by student dyslexia (b = . According to Rosenthal (1994). z = 12. the explicit measure did not predict any of the outcome measures. implicit teacher attitudes did not differentially affect the math achievement of the students with dyslexia. teachers may give students for whom they hold more negative attitudes fewer opportunities to respond and/or less informative feedback. implicit attitudes typically affect fast and intuitive reactions and thus reactions when there is no motivation or opportunity to control one’s reactions (Fazio & Towles-Schwen. The difference in the spelling achievement of those students with dyslexia and those students from the reference group was larger when the teachers held more negative implicit attitudes toward dyslexia. Implicit measures of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia thus appear to be better predictors of student achievement of students with dyslexia than explicit measures of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia. These results show teacher expectations to be related to the different measures of student achievement and that the associations are just as strong for those students with dyslexia as for those students from the reference group. z = 9. Teachers might be unwilling to explicitly report their attitudes because they perceive the expression of a negative attitude toward dyslexia to be socially undesirable. Several mediating teacher–student interaction factors might possibly account for this effect. The spelling achievement of the students when measured using a national standard test. teachers may certainly interact in both a qualitatively or quantitatively different manner with groups of students for whom they hold more or less negative attitudes. z = 10. As argued by Brophy (1985). p < . The effects of teacher attitudes on student achievement may also be explained in terms of self-fulfilling prophecy effects (Jussim et al.26. The implicit attitude scores were more moderate and even negative. they also tend Downloaded from ldx. Interpersonal warmth is mostly communicated via nonverbal behavior (Rosenthal.40. when teachers hold more negative attitudes toward dyslexia. Similarly. The main effects of dyslexia and teacher expectations were thus entered in addition to the interaction of these two predictors to determine if student dyslexia moderated the possible effects of teacher expectations on student achievement.001). and Gaertner (2002)—is mostly predicted by implicit attitude measures. The amount of time and effort that teachers are willing to put into helping students with dyslexia improve their spelling may be one such factor that possibly depends on the attitudes of the teacher. Although the outcomes of the present study show an effect of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on the achievement of students with dyslexia.44. Kawakami. the effects of implicit and explicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia on various measures of student achievement were examined.001). p = . Perhaps not surprisingly. which was also was not moderated by student dyslexia (b = .
In other words. This domain-specific effect of teacher attitudes toward dyslexia obviously raises questions about the effects of teacher attitudes on the achievement of students with other SLDs and the effects of teacher attitudes on the achievement of students with. Alvidrez & Weinstein. sample selection bias may have occurred as a result of the manner in which the teachers were recruited. and independent of whether they were students with dyslexia or students from the reference group (i. Not all of the students in our sample were officially diagnosed as having dyslexia. however. That is. 1999. Future research on teacher characteristics is needed to explain which types of teachers are more likely to have negative attitudes toward dyslexia. As recently argued by Paterson (2007). Berliner. Implicit attitudes have been argued to be expressed mostly via nonverbal behavior (Dovidio et al. 2002). for example. whereas attitudes involve group stereotyping. such a label may also place these same children at risk of stigmatization by teachers. examination of the interaction between teachers and students is needed to reveal how teachers may communicate negative attitudes to students (Rosenthal. a significant association was found between teacher expectations—independent of teacher attitudes—and student achievement.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. Downloaded from ldx. which is formed by his or her prior experiences (Beijaard. Verloop. Teacher preparation as well as the culture of the school in which a teacher is employed. Although a label of SLD can have many benefits in the sense that appropriate treatment and extra support may be attained (Riddick. teacher knowledge of the specific needs of students is nevertheless essential for fruitful teacher–student interactions. Teacher expectations of students with dyslexia may be based on actual performance levels and therefore be fairly accurate (Jussim & Harber.e. which means that knowledge of how to teach children with specific learning needs but without stigmatization must be fostered. 2000). 1994). Nevertheless. the label of “dyslexia” may not always be of help for such students. The effects of teacher expectations were found to be equally strong for students with dyslexia as for students without learning disabilities. 2004). behavioral disorders as well.. forms teacher attitudes (Beijaard et al.. The present findings clearly point to the possibility of teachers and other practitioners who work with children with dyslexia having implicit negative biases that they may not be aware of toward Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) this group of children. and they should inform teachers about the risks of stigmatization. This association was quite strong for all students. Also. and what specific interventions may thus be called for. and underlying values can be referred to as the teacher’s pedagogical identity. As the results of the present study have shown. which could affect the achievement of students with dyslexia. there is a need for greater awareness of potentially negative attitudes on the part of teachers toward dyslexia and the risk of unequal treatment of students with dyslexia as a result of such negative attitudes. Implicit attitude measures could be a helpful tool for teachers to become aware of possible biased attitudes they may hold toward students with learning disabilities. To minimize the stigmatization of certain groups of students. therefore. This could help teachers to find out if they may unintentionally show differential behavior toward these students in comparison to the other students in their classroom. research on the effects of teacher attitudes does not fit into our knowledge of the effects of teacher expectations.. 2002)..sagepub.526 a domain-specific effect of implicit teacher attitudes toward dyslexia. The present results showed teacher expectations to not mediate the association between teacher attitudes and student achievement. the effects of negative implicit teacher attitudes were restricted to the specific domains in which the child is having problems and thus. behavior. the domain of spelling. Some teachers were more negative than others. which means that the process should be examined further. shows a dyslexia label does not lead to greater expectancy effects. Several limitations of the present study can be addressed. some were labeled as students with dyslexia because their teachers strongly suspected this. in the case of dyslexia. The present study. The present results show that the scores of teachers on the implicit attitude measure clearly vary.g. Future research on how this can best be done is therefore needed. 1996). & Vermunt.. First. Jussim et al. Teachers could furthermore videotape their lessons to selfexamine the way in which they interact with students with dyslexia. moreover. 2000. which means that teachers need to become particularly aware of the way in which they interact with students with dyslexia and the nonverbal signals that they—perhaps unintentionally— communicate to these students. 2013 . both teacher education programs and schools could offer teachers the possibility of using an implicit attitude measure to examine their own attitudes. Caution should thus be exercised with regard to labeling practices and group stigmatization. Such biases may not be apparent but nevertheless negatively affect the achievement outcomes of students with dyslexia. research on teacher attitudes exa mines a different process than research on teacher exp ectations and therefore has its own added value. what contextual factors appear to be associated with negative teacher attitudes. As clearly shown in the present study. The present findings highlight the influence of teacher attitudes on student achievement. Many studies of the effects of teacher expectations have shown students from particularly vulnerable groups—such as students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or students with a history of low school performance—to be more susceptible to the effects of teacher expectations than other students (e. The way in which a teacher interacts with different students and the teacher’s knowledge. Certainly in inclusive classrooms. 2005). students without any learning disabilities).
& W. W. Technology & Society. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. American Educational Research Journal.. M. Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles.. (2000). 129–147. B. 163–170.. it might be possible that past student achievement also affects the expectations and attitudes of teachers. Teacher expectancies (pp. F. & Norwich. B. Hall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Notes 1. J. 30. C. A. Bulletin of Science. which made the school level less relevant. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Psychological Science. Johnson. C.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. Dovidio. Meyer (Eds. K. In contrast. J. (2001). E.. Second.. Beijaard. Avramidis. J. Researchers use the generic term SLD. J. 82. Heatherton. F. D. 303–328). However. 50. J. 229–238. Children with SLDs show low achievement in certain academic areas. & Howard. (2000). S. The ethnic backgrounds of students could also lead to lower teacher expectations (Jussim et al. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. & Banaji. the explicit attitude measure was found to have low predictive validity for student achievement outcomes. D. Powell. and many of the teachers who were initially approached refused to participate because of time constraints. The social psychology of stigma (pp.. the students remained in the same classroom with the same teacher for the whole day. the purpose of this study was to examine teacher effects on students. Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Fazio. (2003).. 2003). Dusek. H. D. the focus of the study was solely on teacher attitudes toward dyslexia. Some correlates of teachers’ expectancy bias. J.. D. D. although practitioners speak of a child with. (1985).. 17. Major. Hull (Eds. Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. V. J.. 62–68.. Annual Review of Psychology... this could not be taken into account within the present study as there were no ethnic minority students in the sample with dyslexia. B..sagepub. despite normal intelligence. Kawakami. Babad. R. (1997). Hebl. dyslexia or dyscalculia. Cunningham. Journal of Learning Disabilities.). Stigma: Introduction and overview. 54. 749–764. (1997). (2002). M. the implicit and explicit attitude measures were both newly developed for this study. Journal of Educational Psychology. dyscalculia) or children with a GLD. Johnson. (2002). there were only 16 schools in our sample. a distinction is made between students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) and general learning disabilities (GLDs). Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. In the Netherlands. GLD in the Netherlands is similar to what used to be referred to in the United States as mild mental retardation and in the United Kingdom as mild to moderate learning difficulties. and convergent validity. & Crocker. R. H. C... New York: Guilford. Finally. more research on the construct validity of this scale is therefore recommended. (1986). & Kardes. for example. & Weinstein. 297–327. stability. Despite its face validity. & Olson. (2004). Dovidio. M. The results cannot be generalized to other SLDs (e. R. which is too few for analyses at the level of the school. R. A third school level was not defined for the following reasons: First. F. Teacher–student interaction. which means that additional research is needed to further document the validity of the measurement instruments. Fazio. & Vermunt. Teaching and Teacher Education. In the Netherlands. Also. Morris. Participation was voluntary.). 91. 2. European Journal of Special Needs Education. K. E. 24.. S. 2013 . Preacher. which clearly calls for comparison across classrooms.g. Although the effects of teacher attitudes and expectations on student achievement were examined. 33. 175–183. 16. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. J. 527 3. Y. 1–30). N. G. Clark. R. In T. Sanbonmatsu. F. K. 200–212. (1985). (1999). Downloaded from ldx. 731–746. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Kawakami. Furthermore. Dovidio. M. Early teacher perceptions and later student achievement.. 69–79. & Lyon. & J. F. E. caution must be exercised with regard to causality in light of the design of the present study. R. Kleck. J. A shared characteristic of all SLDs is an unevenness in the development of abilities (Fletcher. 22.. In J. On the automatic activation of attitudes. L. Mahwah. the assignment of a diagnostic label is more or less identical to classification by a disability. B. & Gaertner. On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Brophy. Longitudinal studies are therefore clearly needed in the future to unravel the nature of the causal relations between teacher attitudes and student achievement. Also. R. M. 510–540. 1996). Verloop. SLD in the Netherlands is similar to what is referred to in the United States as learning disabilities and in the United Kingdom as specific learning disabilities. 12. E. References Alvidrez.Hornstra et al. The predictors in the present study were thus at the individual student and teacher/class levels. A. students with GLDs have low academic performance in more than one domain accompanied by a below average intelligence. C. A.. Berliner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Implicit attitude measures: Consistency. M.
Schaeffer. 303–319). Rosenthal. S. Bachrach. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. S. Educational Psychologist. Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 411–442. A user’s guide to MLwiN. M. L. Wentura.. Asking questions about threatening topics: A selective overview. pupil and teacher levels (pp. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43(6) Lindsay. D. B. Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Jussim. & Towles-Schwen.. (2005). (2005). Towles-Schwen. & G. W. C.. (1998). C. 698–705. J. (1997).). (1994). Crano & R. A. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. 77. Teaching and Teacher Education.. Schwarz. Morris. Kurtzman. E. J. Bachrach. Orlando. 72. Teacher expectancies and selffulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns. (2001). 2. B. R. S. B. M. Waermouth.. McConahay. L. The social psychology of stigma (pp. 490–509. G. Stigma and self-fulfilling prophecies. 33. J. Attitudes and attitude change (pp.. M. & Vargas. H. Norton. T. Gawronski.. (2000). 131–155. Jobe. R.. 791–809.). International Journal of Disability. (1986). and racism (pp. Hebl. D. M. and questionnaire construction. E.. Mahwah. 40. L. Mahwah. In A. A. 75. Prislin. Cain (Eds. In J. Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. S. 472–475. I. Modern racism. Gawronski. American Journal of Evaluation. P. Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. & Lyon. 6. J. C. 417–453. The self-perception of a learning disability and its relationship to academic self-concept and self-esteem. Graham (Eds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Teachers’ in-flight thinking in inclusive classrooms.. A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Harris. Heyman. Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. (1996). Journal of Learning Disabilities. & V. Paterson. New York. and labeling effects: Sources of bias in person perception. and the modern racism scale. New York: Guilford.. Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. LeBel. Gschwendner. Turkkan. 2. Jussim. The Science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. Eccles. A. London: Institute of Education. What do implicit measures tell us? Scrutinizing the validity of three common assumptions. J. Jussim. 3. P.. D. G. S. Healy. Dovidio & S. 41–60). & Greve.. R. 535–542. 20. Kleck. Prejudice..). (2003). G.. Cain (Eds. 91–125). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. W. Stone. & McGhie-Richmond... Riddick. S.. In: W. N. Chatman. Sirin. H. E. Review of General Psychology. R. B. 48. A. Essay-writing: What really counts? Higher Education. 2013 . Heatherton. & Oyserman. Lee. R. D. P. (2000). The linguistic intergroup bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice. D. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.. London: Routledge. J. stereotypes.. (2007). Trope (Eds. 28. H. (2007). Jordan. S. The MODE model of attitude–behavior processes.. 31. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Yang. Addressing difficulties in literacy development: Responses at family. Reid. (2008). Automatically activated racial attitudes as predictors of the success of interracial roommate relationships. Manis. R. B. B. Palumbo. Madon. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. F. & Smith. Nickerson. (1996). FL: Academic Press. ambivalence. A. 125–141. W.. P.. Madon. 42. L. Mahwah. C. Guilford. 25–29). Chaiken & Y. Swanson. Soler... (2002).). 228–246. & Stanovich. & Eccles. & V. A. H. 176–179. (2000). & Peters. Review of Educational Research. New York: Psychology Press. S. Stone. British Journal of Educational Psychology. In T. R. Rabash. Turkkan. Jussim. (2001). (1990). Jobe. W. R. In A. Current Directions in Psychological Science. S. 127–160. 427–435. (2000). New York: Guilford. discrimination. resolved and unresolved controversies. W. Prejudice. Sekaquaptewa. R. K. D. (2007). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition. Development and Education. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In H. 30–56). & J. G. Schwartz. (1995).). F. 181–193.. In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. L.. L. & Fazio. K. Journal of Learning Disabilities.. S. (1999). Jussim. Goldstein. 25. H. R. (2002). 1–24. S. Kurtzman. Lyon.com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5.. social stereotypes. Schwartz.. 374–418). & S. M. J. Jordan. T. B. J. 9. et al. 54–76. Von Hippel. T. Perspectives on Psychological Science. T. (2005). 25–29). E. J. L. J. J. school.). J. Plewis.. (2006). Attitude measurement. Masked affective priming by name letters: Evidence for a correspondence Downloaded from ldx. D. Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. 22. An examination of the relationship between labeling and stigmatization with special reference to dyslexia. N. 97–116). Personality and Social Psychology Review. The Science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. E. (2009). B.. & Madon. communication. (1990). Jobe. H. N. S. 23. 35. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. & Soffin. Cognitive processes in self-report. K. The Future of Children. & Harber. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. & Schmitt. Gaertner (Eds. Learning disabilities. S. Social perception.528 Fazio. Browne. 175–220. R. (2000). D. V. 1369–1385. M. Hull (Eds... (1997).sagepub. Nelson. Fletcher. Hox. Kulfanek. L. Le. (2005). 68. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. In S. J. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. M. In J. Hofmann. 281–388. 33–52.
Eindhoven School of Education. the Netherlands. Wittenbrink & N. Joep Bakker. Marinus Voeten. (2000). MSc. Finland. New York: Guilford. and bullying in schools. and educational innovation.. is an assistant professor in the departments of Special Education and Educational Sciences at Radboud University. B. (ethnic) diversity in primary education. Introduction. peer relations. the Netherlands. Wittenbrink & N. Linda van den Bergh.Hornstra et al. student motivation. & Pennington. 654–663. the Netherlands. PhD. Schwarz (Eds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Downloaded from ldx. is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Science. (2007).com at b-on: 01800 Universidade Fernando Pessoa on April 5. New York: Guilford. and interethnic attitudes and relations of students in primary education. His research interests include research methodology and the cultural contexts of education. the Netherlands. Her research interests include teaching practices. He is involved in research on language development.sagepub. & Schwarz. B.. Schwarz (Eds. Implicit Measures of Attitudes (pp. and active learning. In B. His research and teaching activities focus on inclusive education. Wittenbrink. Radboud University. 41. B.). is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Sciences. 41. is a PhD candidate at Eindhoven University of Technology. Psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents with reading disability. PhD. and is a visiting researcher at the Department of Psychology of the University of Turku. Nijmegen. F. MSc. 1–13). G. PhD. was an associate professor (retired) at Radboud University. of explicit and implicit self-esteem. Measuring attitudes through priming. 529 the Netherlands. 2013 . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. school–parent relationships. In B. Nijmegen. Wittenbrink. University of Amsterdam. N. Implicit Measures of Attitudes (pp.). Eddie Denessen. Her research interests include teacher feedback. 1039–1048. Nijmegen. (2007). About the Authors Lisette Hornstra. Willcutt. 17–58). E.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.