Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, Vol. 67, No. 4, 521-527
Effects of Labeling as Educable Mentally Retarded on Teachers' Expectancies for Change in a Student's Performance Roland K. Yoshida Neuropsychiatric Institute— Pacific State Hospital Research Group, Pomona, California
C. Edward Meyers University of Southern California
This experiment studied the effects of alleged bias on teachers' perceptions of a child labeled educable mentally retarded (EMR). An equal number of 40 regular class elementary and 40 EMU teachers from a large urban inner city school district were randomly assigned to groups of 20 viewing a videotape in which a black child was said to be either in a sixth-grade or an EMR classroom. At four intervals, the teacher subjects predicted the future achievement level of the child on concept formation tasks, shown in the tape to be administered by a teacher. The results of a repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that the EMU label did not elicit lower mean expectancy scores than the regular class label, while the trend of increasing expectancies over trials suggests that a teacher's personal evaluation of a student's performance may contribute more than an educational-diagnostic label such as EMR to the behavioral expression of expectancies. There was no difference between EMR and regular class teachers nor interaction of trials with label or teacher group.
This article is a report of an experimental effort to determine the validity of the proposition in deviance theory which holds that to label a person is to produce a change in the expectancies one holds for his performance. This study specifically was addressed to whether teachers' expectations for pupil success differed when the child was labeled "mentally retarded" from what the expecThis article is based on the first author's dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at the University of Southern California, School of Education. This study was funded in part by the U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of the Handicapped, Grant No. OEG 0-73-5263. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Office of Education, and no official endosement by the U.S. Office of Education should be inferred. Thanks are due Pam Walthall for her assistance in the preparation and typing of this manuscript. Requests for reprints may be sent to Roland K. Yoshida, Pacific State Hospital, Box 100-R, Pomona, California 91766. C. Edward Meyers is now at the Neuropsychiatric Institute—Pacific State Hospital Research Group, Pacific State Hospital, Pomona, California.
tations would be if the same child was designated to be in regular class. "Devianceor societal reaction theorists hold that social groups create deviants by labeling as outsiders those whoso infractions of group rules constitute deviance (Becker, 1963). Deviance becomes not only the quality of the act but also the successful application of the deviant label upon the individual. The most notable result of this process is the removal of the labeled person from his normal social group and the virtual impossibility of his return to the normal patterns of social interaction. As Erikson (1962) pointed out, to label a person deviant is to initiate a self-fulfilling prophesy; the labeling tends to produce an irreversible change in status. A current application of deviance theory is in the potential consequences of defining as deviant certain children who have school problems. Although labeling-produced deviance has generally been narrowly applied to various forms of antisocial behavior (Becker, 1963), some investigators have perceived similar deviance in the manner by which some children with learning problems are 521
522
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. E. MEYERS
identified as "mentally retarded" and segregated from their peers by placement into special classes. Those classes and their registrants are labeled "EMU" (for "cducablc mentally retarded"). Historically, the word "educable" was meant to convey the expectancy that the student would acquire basic academic competencies with special segregated group instruction and was not necessarily meant to alienate him otherwise. However some serious problems arose with this segregated placement, leading to a serious reconsideration of this method of educating these mildly retarded children. (a) There arose grave doubt that the segregated placement was any better for their education than their remaining in the regular program (Dunn, 1968; Guskiri & Spickcr, 1968;,Johnson, 1962). (b) Registrants tended to overrcpresent the ethnic minority children allegedly because the placement was a consequence of being tested on culturally biased instruments (Ross, DcYoung, & Cohen, 1971; Williams, 1971). (c) Whether the placement was or was not the best education for the children involved, it has become clear that any child identified as "retarded" invokes stereotypes and attitudes in lay persons and professionals alike, these tendencies being no doubt due in part to knowledge of the characteristics of the more seriously retarded children who are marked by obvious deviant bodily and behavioral stigmata than the all-but-normal EMR children (Guskin, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c; Hollinger & Jones, 1970; Jones, 1972; Lewis, 1973; Meyers, Sitkei, & Watts, 1966). Shotel, lano, and McGettigan (1972) found that teachers rated the EMR as difficult to teach and that specialized help would be required to cope adequately with them. In short, descriptions and labels of the mentally retarded appear to demonstrate the saliency of the perceived differences between the retarded and the normal. However, knowing people's beliefs about certain labels does not answer the question about the specific issue of teacher expectancies for children with whom the teacher interacts daily in the classroom. Can mere labeling of a child prevail if the teacher otherwise has first-hand information about the child's competencies? Some studies would
appear to answer yes to that question, but the conclusions are in doubt. In one variety of study, investigators have paired teachers, volunteers, or college students who were interested in a teaching career with previously unknown students; the students were randomly described as high or low achievers (Beez, 1970; Rothbart, Dalfcn, & Barrett, 1971; Rubovits & Machr, 1971). The results of these studies suggest expectancies can be formed before a teacher interacts with students. The situations used in the studies above were quite limited in teacher-pupil ratio (one-to-four at the most) and were conducted over a very short period (usually a half hour). However, another variety of study used an actual classroom situation of more enduring teacher contact with the child. Roscnthal and Jacobson (1968) claimed to have found gain scores on an endof-year intelligence test as a consequence of teachers being told earlier that certain (randomly selected) pupils in their classes possessed the potential for growth; presumably the information caused the teachers to work toward such growth. Most investigators have failed to replicate the findings of Rosenthal and Jacobson (Claiborn, 1969; Dusek & O'Conncll, 1973; Jose & Cody, 1971). Two studies which failed to replicate included mentally retarded children (Gozali & Meyen, 1970; Soulo, 1972). Most studies on such artificial expectancy have employed a confounded treatment. Typically the teachers were given the contrived but plausible prediction after they had an opportunity to have interacted with the students. The teachers would also have developed _jtheir expectancies for the children in their own manners, as others have demonstrated, which arc potent in affecting the quality of teacher-student interaction (Brophy & Good, 1970; Dusek & O'Conncll, 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972). They showed that teachers, rather than relying only on a label or a contrived description of a student, interacted with particular students according to expectancies which had matured over weeks and months of classroom observation. Any reaction due to labeling could be altered by the prolonged direct contact. Given the somewhat equivocal results in
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL
answering the question of whether classifactory labels bias the quality of teacherstudent interaction, the present study sought to determine the effects of the label of "mentally retarded" on teachers' expectancy levels for performance over a period of time. Specifically, experienced teachers observed the videotaped performance of a student in a series of four concept-formation tests. Each test was said to follow 2-week periods of training. The present design contrasted the EMR label with the regular class label applied to the child whose performance was observed. The design also provided the opportunity for regular class elementary and EMR teachers to observe actual change in successive tests. Deviance theory presumes that all rule enforcers (here, the teachers) subscribe fully to the negative role expectations of the mentally retarded status and would behave toward the labeled person accordingly. It is possible that career teachers of the EMR may be less biased toward EMR students and more sensitive to changes in their students over time than regular class teachers because the teacher of the EMR would presumably have as a program objective the rcintegration of the children into the regular program. To test this possible difference in expectancy according to teacher group, the study provided for random assignment of each group of teachers, EMR and regular class, to each of the label conditions. METHOD Subjects Eighty elementary level teachers, 40 each from the regular and special education programs of a large southern California inner city school district, volunteered to participate in this study. An equal number of teachers from each program was randomly assigned to the label treatments, resulting in 20 subjects assigned to one of four teachertreatment conditions. The regular class teachers were selected from one school site with a black student population of approximately 97%. Over 90% of the teaching staff agreed to participate. One was male and 39 were female; 14 were Anglo, 25 were Black, and 1 was Chicano, and they ranged in teaching experience at the elementary level from 1 to 24 years (X = 8.82) with none having had experience in special programs for the EMR. The teachers of the EMR were selected from
523
the same school district as the regular class teachers and from schools with predominately black student populations. As a group, 5 were male and 35 were female; 14 were Anglo, 21 were Black, 1 was Chicano, and 4 were other non-whites. The range of their EMR teaching experience was from 1 to 24 years (X = 6.6); 31 had taught in the regular elementary school grades at some time in their careers.
Materials Videotape, Subjects were presented a 30-minute videotape showing a child responding to four sets of concept formation tasks which were denned as tests. The tape showed the tests being given by an adult who was said to be the child's teacher. The adult was a black female, about 35 years of age and actually employed as an EMR teacher. She had taught 12 years in either elementary or special education. The videotaped child confederate was a 13-year-old black male student. The stimulus materials given the child confederate consisted of a concept-formation task in the form of sets of three nouns about which the child was required to state a common feature. For example, the noun set, button, wheel, and balloon, was to elicit a response such as "round." These tasks were developed from a list of verbal materials previously used by Underwood and Richardson (1956). Those investigators had presented 328 nouns to a sample of undergraduate college students who responded with an association, restricted to sense impressions such as size, shape, color, and so on. They eliminated 115 words for various reasons, principally because the adjectival concept would have been too abstract and because a single adjective did not appear commonly enough to constitute a reasonable "correct" response. The remaining 213 nouns were scaled according to the proportion of responses that were elicited for a single descriptive category. For the purposes of this study, concept formation task items consisting of three nouns each were formed from Underwood and Richardson's final list. Nouns were included only if they were mentioned 50% or more of the time in a single category and had a Thorndike-Lorge word frequency of five or more per million words (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944). Also, categories with fewer than four associations were eliminated so that more than a single set of nouns would be generated for every concept used in the study. Forty concept formation items were randomly selected from all possible three-word combinations fulfilling the criteria above. They were divided into four sets of 10 defined as tests. The sequence of presentation and the number of correct responses given by the child (as he was instructed) in each set were as follows: Test 1,2 of 10 responses correct; Test 2, 4 of 10 responses correct; Test 3, 6 of 10 responses correct; Test 4, 8 of 10 responses correct. This increase in the number right was
524
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. K. MEYERS
intentional to permit the teacher subjects the opportunity to observe improvement, but the scores were never given to the teacher subjects either in the tape or otherwise; the increase had to be detected. The correctly answered tasks were randomized within each set.1 The videotape was filmed in a model classroom. The adult verbally presented the concept formation tasks in the "test" trials by saying, "How are (noun) , (noun) , and (noun) the same?" As instructed by the experimenter the adult confederate repeated the question above or some variate of it for each task such as "In which way arc the three words related?"; "What makes (noun) go with (noun) and (noun) ?"; or "How are the words I gave you alike?" The child confederate correctly responded to the tasks only if told to do so by the experimenter, otherwise he made an imperfect response or said he could not answer the question. For each new "test," the furniture in the classroom was rearranged and the child and adult confederates changed into different clothing to simulate the passage of time. Case descriptions and labds of the child confederate. The two labeling conditions, EMR and sixth_grade, were presented before the viewing o'f the, videotape by moans _ofj>rief xeroxed case descriptions included in materials provided the teacher subjects. The descriptions wore the same in content except for the inclusion of one of the labels at four different locations in the case narrative. For the EMR-labeled condition, the fact that the child was EMR or in an EMR class was rioted or inferred in passing, without this mention seeming to be contrived or emphasized. For the regular sixth-grade class label, the appropriate words were used in the same four places in the case description. The case descriptions were composed of two sections, background and behavioral observation. The background material included the child confederate's ficticious name, his birthdate, chronological age, current school placement, and family background. The development of the behavioral observation was accomplished by reviewing a small sample (n = 10) of EMR students' case studies compiled by school psychologists. Test and school behaviors recurring most often, excluding those overtly aggressive in nature, were incorporated into the case descriptions which also described the child confederate as having difficult)' in verbalizing the relationship among sets of nouns. Teacher questionnaire. Four questions wore constructed to measure the teachers' expectancies of the probable future performance of the child on the concept formation tasks. Following the presentation of each test in the videotape sequence, the teachers were asked to predict how many concept formation tasks out of the next set of 10 the child 1 A list of the concept formation tasks presented in the videotape will be supplied upon request to the first author.
confederate would answer correctly on the subsequent test. The possible responses ranged from 0-10. The teachers marked their responses in the questionnaire. Two questions were included at the end of the experiment proper which assessed the validity of labeling the child's behavior in the videotape as EMR or sixth grade, regular program. The questions asked the teacher subjects whether they would find children such as the one in the videotape in either an elementary or an EMR classroom.
Procedure Separate groups of regular elementary and EMR teachers, varying in size from 2 to 10 subjects, were assembled in a convenient classroom. They were told that they were participating in a teacher judgment experiment leading to the development of a training procedure for improving observation skills in student teachers. Prior to seeing the videotape, each teacher was given a folder containing one of the two case descriptions of the child confederate and the teacher questionnaire. The teacher subjects were reminded not to discuss the information in the case description with other subjects. The experimenter proceeded to present the videotape. After the tape was shown, the experimenter debriefed the subjects by explaining the background and purpose of the experiment.
Data Analysis The data were analyzed with a 2 X 2 X 4 repeated measures analysis ~oT~variancc invotvTng two levels of the labeling treatment (EMR vs. sixth grade, elementary), two levels of teacher type (regular elementary vs. elementary level EMR), and 4 levels of the repeated measures (Trial 1, Trial 2, Trial 3, Trial 4) as factors in the analysis of variance model. The data were processed by a BMD08V computer program developed by the Health Sciences Computing Facility at the University of California, Los Angeles (Dixon, 1973). An alpha level (p < .05) was adopted to test the significance of each statistical hypothesis.
RESULTS Tho teacher subjects wore asked at the close of the experimental session whether the filmed behavior by the child and adult confederates were examples of behaviors found in the regular sixth-grade or EMR (upper level) classrooms in their school district. Seventy-nine of the 80 subjects responded that they have observed this type of behavior in both the regular and special education programs at the elementary level. One subject did not respond to the questions. Table 1 presents the mean expectancy scores for the main effects of the labeling
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL
525
TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDABD DEVIATIONS OF EXPECTANCY SCORKS FOB EACH VARIABLE ACEOSS TRIALS Trial 2
Trial 1
Trial 3
Total
Trial 4
Variable
Label Sixth Grade EMR Type of Teacher Elementary Special Education Trials Label X Type of Teacher Sixth Grade X Elementary Sixth Grade X Special Education EMR X Elementary EMR X Special Education
M
SD
il
SD
M
SD
If
SD
M
SD
6.00 5.90
2.24 2.15
5.45 5.40
1.16 1.28
6.95 6.67
1.36
9.07 8.68
.88 1.18
6.86
1.42
6.66
1.04 1.09
5.68 6.23 5.95
2.13 2.22 2.18
5.23 5.63 5.43
1.27 1.13
1.50 1.28 1.39
8.98 8.78 8.88
1.05 1.07 1.06
6.65 6.88
1.05 1.09
1.21
6.73 6.90 6.81
5.85 6.15 5.50 6.30
2.18 2.35 2.12 2.16
5.20 5.70 5.25 5.55
1.06 1.22 1.48 1.05
6.80 7.10 6.65 6.70
1.28 1.45 1.73 1.08
0.10 9.05 8.85 8.50
.79 1.00 1.27 1.10
6.74 7.00 6.56 6.76
.92 1.15 1.18 1.03
Note. EMR = educable mentally retarded.
condition, type of teacher, and each trial and their interactions. One significant main effect was found. Teacher subjects, regardless of type and labeling condition, changed their expectancy scores with trials, F (3,228) = 115.4952, p < .001. Other than the decrease in mean scores from Trial 1 to Trial 2, a trend of higher expectancy scores for successive trials was found. Mean expectancy scores for each trial were 5.95, 5.43, 6.81, and 8.88, respectively. None of the interaction terms was statistically significant. DISCUSSION The labeling perspective has presumed that most teachers should expect lower performance by a student labeled EMR than one said to be in a regular program, given the all-pervasive nature of the EMR label. However, it was noted that the labeling perspective has not accounted for two important variables: (a) possible changes in a teacher's expectancies as the result of observing student behavior which disconfirms a label and (b) the difference in the roles of EMR and regular class teachers as rule enforcers; that is, the possible differential effect of the EMR label upon the EMR specialist compared with the regular class teacher. This study was designed to investigate the assumed bias of the EMR label on teachers' expectancies as related to changes
in a student's performance as well as effects due to the status of the teacher. The results of this study do not support thc_ arguments of the labeling perspective and call into question its theoretical framework First, the EMR label did not cTTcTb lower mean expectancy scores than the regular label. The implication is that educational-diagnostic labels do not differentially affect the teacher's expectancy within the context of this study. This result is consistent with the findings of some studies but not consistent with those of others. The difference between the two types or varieties of studies should be made clear. One type of study is represented by the reports of Beez (1970), Rothbart et al. (1971), and Rubovits and Machr (1971). These studies tended to confirm expectancy^ tnascs due to labeling, but in this type of study there was only a short contact between teacher and student, not enough to permit a possible development of bases for expectancy other than the label. The present study confirms the other Yarioty of study, represented by the many failures to replicate the Rosenthal-Jacobson investigation: Claiborn (1969), Dusck and O'Connell (1973), Jose and Cody (1971) and Gozali and Meyen (1970). Methodologically, both sets of studies presented contrived descriptions of students to experienced teachers who were to observe or evaluate the students. However, whereas the Beez type of study
526
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. E. MEYERS
grouped teachers with students for only a half an hour, the Rosenthal-Jacobson replication investigations provided for teacherstudent contact for at least 1 month, more typically 1 year, permitting the development of expectancies for the students upon direct observation and interaction. In the present study, teacher subjects with several years of classroom experience were told that they were observing approximately 2 months of behavior. The teachers were judging in the context of a longitudinal sample of behavior rather than a single instance of interaction. The Jeachcrjs_reliancc upon_j^Jabel may have been reduced it is asserted_hcre, because of the availability of other cues for making an evaluation. This interpretation concurs with Dusek and O'Connoll (1973) and O'Connoll, Dusck, and Wheeler (1974) who found that student achievement appeared related to a teacher's personal ranking of students and not to a plausible but fabricated description of individual students even within the short period of 3 weeks. In other words, expectancies may be based upon personal observation by a teacher rather than a label given to a student. The finding of nonsignificant results of the labeling treatment may be due to methodological problems such as the content of the videotape or the procedures for presenting the labeling conditions, (a) The differential labels may not have been perceived by the teacher subjects. This explanation is not likely because the case descriptions of the child confederate described the child as attending a regular or special EMU class at four points in the narrative. The teacher subjects were given individual copies of one of the descriptions and were given ample time to read the case study, (b) The typical sixth-grade student may usually be expected to perform much better than the performance presented in the videotape; thus, he may have been perceived as atypical of sixth graders and his behavior may have been inconsistent with his label. However, 79 of the 80 participating teachers responded that the filmed behavior of the child and adult confederates were examples of behavior found in both the regular and EMU (upper level) classrooms in their school district. This finding attests to the internal validity of
the procedure; more specifically, the behavior displayed in the film was observed by the teacher subjects in their daily school experience. In short, it is very unlikely that the nonsignificant findings may be attributed to the methodology employed in this study. The videotape was not, of course, a representation of a semester's contact with the child, but the same claim to the validity of the procedure given above may apply here: The teachers did observe improved behavior and changed their expectancies with it and on debriefing did attest to the verisimilitude of the observed behavior as characteristic of children of the EMR or sixth-grade regular classes. Contrary to expectation, the main effect of teacher type was not significant nor was the interaction of teacher with either labels or trials, which suggests that in this study the teachers did not differ in their reactions to labels by the position they hold in school. One possible explanation for these nonsignificant results may be the relatively high degree of contact which the regular and EMR teachers had with both types of students. The teachers who were the subjects for this study were sampled from a large inner city school district which operated EMR classes in practically every elementary school building, thus providing abundant opportunity for these teachers to become aware of both regular and EMR students. This exposure to special students may have lessened thc_e_ff_ect of the label on the regular teachers? This result and the results of previous research (Brophy & Good, 1970; Good & Brophy, 1972) suggest that regardless of the teacher's position, it may be more important to know the teacher's past experience with various kinds of school children as well as his evaluation of individual students rather than his assumptions concerning the learning potential in the abstract of a particular group such as the EMR to which the student may belong. No doubt these interpretations are made in the context of a videotaped presentation of a small sample of a single child's behavior. The typical special education and regular elementary teacher operates in a more complex environment that includes more children, a diverse curriculum, and a broad
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL range of student ability. Future investigation should begin to study the relationship between labels and their effects on teacher behavior' and student performance in the more natural situation of the classroom. REFERENCES Becker, H. S. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Glenooe, 111.: Free Press, 1963. Beez, W. V. Influence of biased psychological reports on teacher behavior and pupil performance. In M. B. Miles & W. W, Charters, Jr. (Eds.), Learning and social settings: New readings in the social psychology of education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. Teacher's communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374. Claiborn, W. L. Expectancy effects in the classroom: A failure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 377-383. Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). BMD: Biomedical computer programs (3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. Dunn, L. M. Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 5-22. Dusek, J. B., & O'Connell, E. J. Teacher expectancy effects on the achievement test performance of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 66, 371-377. Erikson, K. T. Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 1962, 9, 307-314. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 617-624. Gozali, J., & Meyen, E. L. The influence of the teacher expectancy phenomenon on the academic performances of educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. Journal of Special Education, 1970, 4, 417-424. Guskin, S. L. Measuring the strength of the stereotype of the mental defective. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 569-575. (a) Guskin, S. L. Dimensions of judged similarity among deviant types. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 68, 218-224. (b) Guskin, S. L. Social psychologies of mental deficiences. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. (c) Guskin, S. L., & Spicker, H. H. Educational research in mental retardation. In N. II. Ellis (Vol. 3) (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Hollinger, C. S., & Jones, R. L. Community attitudes toward slow learners and mental re-
527
tardates: What's in a name? Mental Retardation, 1970, 8, 19-23. Johnson, G. O. Special education for mentally handicapped—A paradox. Exceptional Children, 1962, 19, 62-69. Jones, R. L. Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 553-564. Jose, J., & Cody, J. J. Teacher-pupil interaction as it relates to attempted changes in teacher expectancy of academic ability and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 8, 39-49. Lewis, J. F. The community and the retarded: A study in social ambivalence. In G. Tarjan, R. K. Eyman, & C. E. Meyers (Eds.), Sociobehavioral studies in mental retardation: Papers in honor of Harvey F. Dingman. Monographs of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1973, No. 1, pp. 164-174. Meyers, C. E., Sitkei, E. G., & Watts, C. A. Attitudes toward special education and the handicapped in two community groups. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 78-84. O'Connell, E. J., Dusek, J. B., & Wheeler, II. J. A follow-up study of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 325-328. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil's intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Ross, S. L., Do Young, H. G., & Cohen, J. S. Confrontation: Special education placement and the law. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38, 5-12. Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., & Barrett, R. Effects of teacher's expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 6H, 49-54. Rubovits, P. C., & Maehr, M. L. Pygmalion analyzed: Toward an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 197-203. Shotel, J. R., lano, R. P., & MeGettigan, J. F. Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 677-683. Soule, D. Teacher bias effects with severely retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1972, 77, 208-211. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. The teacher's work book of 80,000 words. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1944. Underwood, B. J., & Richardson, J. Some verbal materials for the study of concept formation. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 63, 84-101. Williams, R. L. Abuses and misuses in testing black children. Counseling Psychologist, 1971, 0, 62-73. (Received October 4, 1974)
Effects of Labeling as Educable Mentally Retarded on Teachers' Expectancies for Change in a Student's Performance Roland K. Yoshida Neuropsychiatric Institute— Pacific State Hospital Research Group, Pomona, California
C. Edward Meyers University of Southern California
This experiment studied the effects of alleged bias on teachers' perceptions of a child labeled educable mentally retarded (EMR). An equal number of 40 regular class elementary and 40 EMU teachers from a large urban inner city school district were randomly assigned to groups of 20 viewing a videotape in which a black child was said to be either in a sixth-grade or an EMR classroom. At four intervals, the teacher subjects predicted the future achievement level of the child on concept formation tasks, shown in the tape to be administered by a teacher. The results of a repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that the EMU label did not elicit lower mean expectancy scores than the regular class label, while the trend of increasing expectancies over trials suggests that a teacher's personal evaluation of a student's performance may contribute more than an educational-diagnostic label such as EMR to the behavioral expression of expectancies. There was no difference between EMR and regular class teachers nor interaction of trials with label or teacher group.
This article is a report of an experimental effort to determine the validity of the proposition in deviance theory which holds that to label a person is to produce a change in the expectancies one holds for his performance. This study specifically was addressed to whether teachers' expectations for pupil success differed when the child was labeled "mentally retarded" from what the expecThis article is based on the first author's dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at the University of Southern California, School of Education. This study was funded in part by the U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of the Handicapped, Grant No. OEG 0-73-5263. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Office of Education, and no official endosement by the U.S. Office of Education should be inferred. Thanks are due Pam Walthall for her assistance in the preparation and typing of this manuscript. Requests for reprints may be sent to Roland K. Yoshida, Pacific State Hospital, Box 100-R, Pomona, California 91766. C. Edward Meyers is now at the Neuropsychiatric Institute—Pacific State Hospital Research Group, Pacific State Hospital, Pomona, California.
tations would be if the same child was designated to be in regular class. "Devianceor societal reaction theorists hold that social groups create deviants by labeling as outsiders those whoso infractions of group rules constitute deviance (Becker, 1963). Deviance becomes not only the quality of the act but also the successful application of the deviant label upon the individual. The most notable result of this process is the removal of the labeled person from his normal social group and the virtual impossibility of his return to the normal patterns of social interaction. As Erikson (1962) pointed out, to label a person deviant is to initiate a self-fulfilling prophesy; the labeling tends to produce an irreversible change in status. A current application of deviance theory is in the potential consequences of defining as deviant certain children who have school problems. Although labeling-produced deviance has generally been narrowly applied to various forms of antisocial behavior (Becker, 1963), some investigators have perceived similar deviance in the manner by which some children with learning problems are 521
522
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. E. MEYERS
identified as "mentally retarded" and segregated from their peers by placement into special classes. Those classes and their registrants are labeled "EMU" (for "cducablc mentally retarded"). Historically, the word "educable" was meant to convey the expectancy that the student would acquire basic academic competencies with special segregated group instruction and was not necessarily meant to alienate him otherwise. However some serious problems arose with this segregated placement, leading to a serious reconsideration of this method of educating these mildly retarded children. (a) There arose grave doubt that the segregated placement was any better for their education than their remaining in the regular program (Dunn, 1968; Guskiri & Spickcr, 1968;,Johnson, 1962). (b) Registrants tended to overrcpresent the ethnic minority children allegedly because the placement was a consequence of being tested on culturally biased instruments (Ross, DcYoung, & Cohen, 1971; Williams, 1971). (c) Whether the placement was or was not the best education for the children involved, it has become clear that any child identified as "retarded" invokes stereotypes and attitudes in lay persons and professionals alike, these tendencies being no doubt due in part to knowledge of the characteristics of the more seriously retarded children who are marked by obvious deviant bodily and behavioral stigmata than the all-but-normal EMR children (Guskin, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c; Hollinger & Jones, 1970; Jones, 1972; Lewis, 1973; Meyers, Sitkei, & Watts, 1966). Shotel, lano, and McGettigan (1972) found that teachers rated the EMR as difficult to teach and that specialized help would be required to cope adequately with them. In short, descriptions and labels of the mentally retarded appear to demonstrate the saliency of the perceived differences between the retarded and the normal. However, knowing people's beliefs about certain labels does not answer the question about the specific issue of teacher expectancies for children with whom the teacher interacts daily in the classroom. Can mere labeling of a child prevail if the teacher otherwise has first-hand information about the child's competencies? Some studies would
appear to answer yes to that question, but the conclusions are in doubt. In one variety of study, investigators have paired teachers, volunteers, or college students who were interested in a teaching career with previously unknown students; the students were randomly described as high or low achievers (Beez, 1970; Rothbart, Dalfcn, & Barrett, 1971; Rubovits & Machr, 1971). The results of these studies suggest expectancies can be formed before a teacher interacts with students. The situations used in the studies above were quite limited in teacher-pupil ratio (one-to-four at the most) and were conducted over a very short period (usually a half hour). However, another variety of study used an actual classroom situation of more enduring teacher contact with the child. Roscnthal and Jacobson (1968) claimed to have found gain scores on an endof-year intelligence test as a consequence of teachers being told earlier that certain (randomly selected) pupils in their classes possessed the potential for growth; presumably the information caused the teachers to work toward such growth. Most investigators have failed to replicate the findings of Rosenthal and Jacobson (Claiborn, 1969; Dusek & O'Conncll, 1973; Jose & Cody, 1971). Two studies which failed to replicate included mentally retarded children (Gozali & Meyen, 1970; Soulo, 1972). Most studies on such artificial expectancy have employed a confounded treatment. Typically the teachers were given the contrived but plausible prediction after they had an opportunity to have interacted with the students. The teachers would also have developed _jtheir expectancies for the children in their own manners, as others have demonstrated, which arc potent in affecting the quality of teacher-student interaction (Brophy & Good, 1970; Dusek & O'Conncll, 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972). They showed that teachers, rather than relying only on a label or a contrived description of a student, interacted with particular students according to expectancies which had matured over weeks and months of classroom observation. Any reaction due to labeling could be altered by the prolonged direct contact. Given the somewhat equivocal results in
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL
answering the question of whether classifactory labels bias the quality of teacherstudent interaction, the present study sought to determine the effects of the label of "mentally retarded" on teachers' expectancy levels for performance over a period of time. Specifically, experienced teachers observed the videotaped performance of a student in a series of four concept-formation tests. Each test was said to follow 2-week periods of training. The present design contrasted the EMR label with the regular class label applied to the child whose performance was observed. The design also provided the opportunity for regular class elementary and EMR teachers to observe actual change in successive tests. Deviance theory presumes that all rule enforcers (here, the teachers) subscribe fully to the negative role expectations of the mentally retarded status and would behave toward the labeled person accordingly. It is possible that career teachers of the EMR may be less biased toward EMR students and more sensitive to changes in their students over time than regular class teachers because the teacher of the EMR would presumably have as a program objective the rcintegration of the children into the regular program. To test this possible difference in expectancy according to teacher group, the study provided for random assignment of each group of teachers, EMR and regular class, to each of the label conditions. METHOD Subjects Eighty elementary level teachers, 40 each from the regular and special education programs of a large southern California inner city school district, volunteered to participate in this study. An equal number of teachers from each program was randomly assigned to the label treatments, resulting in 20 subjects assigned to one of four teachertreatment conditions. The regular class teachers were selected from one school site with a black student population of approximately 97%. Over 90% of the teaching staff agreed to participate. One was male and 39 were female; 14 were Anglo, 25 were Black, and 1 was Chicano, and they ranged in teaching experience at the elementary level from 1 to 24 years (X = 8.82) with none having had experience in special programs for the EMR. The teachers of the EMR were selected from
523
the same school district as the regular class teachers and from schools with predominately black student populations. As a group, 5 were male and 35 were female; 14 were Anglo, 21 were Black, 1 was Chicano, and 4 were other non-whites. The range of their EMR teaching experience was from 1 to 24 years (X = 6.6); 31 had taught in the regular elementary school grades at some time in their careers.
Materials Videotape, Subjects were presented a 30-minute videotape showing a child responding to four sets of concept formation tasks which were denned as tests. The tape showed the tests being given by an adult who was said to be the child's teacher. The adult was a black female, about 35 years of age and actually employed as an EMR teacher. She had taught 12 years in either elementary or special education. The videotaped child confederate was a 13-year-old black male student. The stimulus materials given the child confederate consisted of a concept-formation task in the form of sets of three nouns about which the child was required to state a common feature. For example, the noun set, button, wheel, and balloon, was to elicit a response such as "round." These tasks were developed from a list of verbal materials previously used by Underwood and Richardson (1956). Those investigators had presented 328 nouns to a sample of undergraduate college students who responded with an association, restricted to sense impressions such as size, shape, color, and so on. They eliminated 115 words for various reasons, principally because the adjectival concept would have been too abstract and because a single adjective did not appear commonly enough to constitute a reasonable "correct" response. The remaining 213 nouns were scaled according to the proportion of responses that were elicited for a single descriptive category. For the purposes of this study, concept formation task items consisting of three nouns each were formed from Underwood and Richardson's final list. Nouns were included only if they were mentioned 50% or more of the time in a single category and had a Thorndike-Lorge word frequency of five or more per million words (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944). Also, categories with fewer than four associations were eliminated so that more than a single set of nouns would be generated for every concept used in the study. Forty concept formation items were randomly selected from all possible three-word combinations fulfilling the criteria above. They were divided into four sets of 10 defined as tests. The sequence of presentation and the number of correct responses given by the child (as he was instructed) in each set were as follows: Test 1,2 of 10 responses correct; Test 2, 4 of 10 responses correct; Test 3, 6 of 10 responses correct; Test 4, 8 of 10 responses correct. This increase in the number right was
524
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. K. MEYERS
intentional to permit the teacher subjects the opportunity to observe improvement, but the scores were never given to the teacher subjects either in the tape or otherwise; the increase had to be detected. The correctly answered tasks were randomized within each set.1 The videotape was filmed in a model classroom. The adult verbally presented the concept formation tasks in the "test" trials by saying, "How are (noun) , (noun) , and (noun) the same?" As instructed by the experimenter the adult confederate repeated the question above or some variate of it for each task such as "In which way arc the three words related?"; "What makes (noun) go with (noun) and (noun) ?"; or "How are the words I gave you alike?" The child confederate correctly responded to the tasks only if told to do so by the experimenter, otherwise he made an imperfect response or said he could not answer the question. For each new "test," the furniture in the classroom was rearranged and the child and adult confederates changed into different clothing to simulate the passage of time. Case descriptions and labds of the child confederate. The two labeling conditions, EMR and sixth_grade, were presented before the viewing o'f the, videotape by moans _ofj>rief xeroxed case descriptions included in materials provided the teacher subjects. The descriptions wore the same in content except for the inclusion of one of the labels at four different locations in the case narrative. For the EMR-labeled condition, the fact that the child was EMR or in an EMR class was rioted or inferred in passing, without this mention seeming to be contrived or emphasized. For the regular sixth-grade class label, the appropriate words were used in the same four places in the case description. The case descriptions were composed of two sections, background and behavioral observation. The background material included the child confederate's ficticious name, his birthdate, chronological age, current school placement, and family background. The development of the behavioral observation was accomplished by reviewing a small sample (n = 10) of EMR students' case studies compiled by school psychologists. Test and school behaviors recurring most often, excluding those overtly aggressive in nature, were incorporated into the case descriptions which also described the child confederate as having difficult)' in verbalizing the relationship among sets of nouns. Teacher questionnaire. Four questions wore constructed to measure the teachers' expectancies of the probable future performance of the child on the concept formation tasks. Following the presentation of each test in the videotape sequence, the teachers were asked to predict how many concept formation tasks out of the next set of 10 the child 1 A list of the concept formation tasks presented in the videotape will be supplied upon request to the first author.
confederate would answer correctly on the subsequent test. The possible responses ranged from 0-10. The teachers marked their responses in the questionnaire. Two questions were included at the end of the experiment proper which assessed the validity of labeling the child's behavior in the videotape as EMR or sixth grade, regular program. The questions asked the teacher subjects whether they would find children such as the one in the videotape in either an elementary or an EMR classroom.
Procedure Separate groups of regular elementary and EMR teachers, varying in size from 2 to 10 subjects, were assembled in a convenient classroom. They were told that they were participating in a teacher judgment experiment leading to the development of a training procedure for improving observation skills in student teachers. Prior to seeing the videotape, each teacher was given a folder containing one of the two case descriptions of the child confederate and the teacher questionnaire. The teacher subjects were reminded not to discuss the information in the case description with other subjects. The experimenter proceeded to present the videotape. After the tape was shown, the experimenter debriefed the subjects by explaining the background and purpose of the experiment.
Data Analysis The data were analyzed with a 2 X 2 X 4 repeated measures analysis ~oT~variancc invotvTng two levels of the labeling treatment (EMR vs. sixth grade, elementary), two levels of teacher type (regular elementary vs. elementary level EMR), and 4 levels of the repeated measures (Trial 1, Trial 2, Trial 3, Trial 4) as factors in the analysis of variance model. The data were processed by a BMD08V computer program developed by the Health Sciences Computing Facility at the University of California, Los Angeles (Dixon, 1973). An alpha level (p < .05) was adopted to test the significance of each statistical hypothesis.
RESULTS Tho teacher subjects wore asked at the close of the experimental session whether the filmed behavior by the child and adult confederates were examples of behaviors found in the regular sixth-grade or EMR (upper level) classrooms in their school district. Seventy-nine of the 80 subjects responded that they have observed this type of behavior in both the regular and special education programs at the elementary level. One subject did not respond to the questions. Table 1 presents the mean expectancy scores for the main effects of the labeling
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL
525
TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDABD DEVIATIONS OF EXPECTANCY SCORKS FOB EACH VARIABLE ACEOSS TRIALS Trial 2
Trial 1
Trial 3
Total
Trial 4
Variable
Label Sixth Grade EMR Type of Teacher Elementary Special Education Trials Label X Type of Teacher Sixth Grade X Elementary Sixth Grade X Special Education EMR X Elementary EMR X Special Education
M
SD
il
SD
M
SD
If
SD
M
SD
6.00 5.90
2.24 2.15
5.45 5.40
1.16 1.28
6.95 6.67
1.36
9.07 8.68
.88 1.18
6.86
1.42
6.66
1.04 1.09
5.68 6.23 5.95
2.13 2.22 2.18
5.23 5.63 5.43
1.27 1.13
1.50 1.28 1.39
8.98 8.78 8.88
1.05 1.07 1.06
6.65 6.88
1.05 1.09
1.21
6.73 6.90 6.81
5.85 6.15 5.50 6.30
2.18 2.35 2.12 2.16
5.20 5.70 5.25 5.55
1.06 1.22 1.48 1.05
6.80 7.10 6.65 6.70
1.28 1.45 1.73 1.08
0.10 9.05 8.85 8.50
.79 1.00 1.27 1.10
6.74 7.00 6.56 6.76
.92 1.15 1.18 1.03
Note. EMR = educable mentally retarded.
condition, type of teacher, and each trial and their interactions. One significant main effect was found. Teacher subjects, regardless of type and labeling condition, changed their expectancy scores with trials, F (3,228) = 115.4952, p < .001. Other than the decrease in mean scores from Trial 1 to Trial 2, a trend of higher expectancy scores for successive trials was found. Mean expectancy scores for each trial were 5.95, 5.43, 6.81, and 8.88, respectively. None of the interaction terms was statistically significant. DISCUSSION The labeling perspective has presumed that most teachers should expect lower performance by a student labeled EMR than one said to be in a regular program, given the all-pervasive nature of the EMR label. However, it was noted that the labeling perspective has not accounted for two important variables: (a) possible changes in a teacher's expectancies as the result of observing student behavior which disconfirms a label and (b) the difference in the roles of EMR and regular class teachers as rule enforcers; that is, the possible differential effect of the EMR label upon the EMR specialist compared with the regular class teacher. This study was designed to investigate the assumed bias of the EMR label on teachers' expectancies as related to changes
in a student's performance as well as effects due to the status of the teacher. The results of this study do not support thc_ arguments of the labeling perspective and call into question its theoretical framework First, the EMR label did not cTTcTb lower mean expectancy scores than the regular label. The implication is that educational-diagnostic labels do not differentially affect the teacher's expectancy within the context of this study. This result is consistent with the findings of some studies but not consistent with those of others. The difference between the two types or varieties of studies should be made clear. One type of study is represented by the reports of Beez (1970), Rothbart et al. (1971), and Rubovits and Machr (1971). These studies tended to confirm expectancy^ tnascs due to labeling, but in this type of study there was only a short contact between teacher and student, not enough to permit a possible development of bases for expectancy other than the label. The present study confirms the other Yarioty of study, represented by the many failures to replicate the Rosenthal-Jacobson investigation: Claiborn (1969), Dusck and O'Connell (1973), Jose and Cody (1971) and Gozali and Meyen (1970). Methodologically, both sets of studies presented contrived descriptions of students to experienced teachers who were to observe or evaluate the students. However, whereas the Beez type of study
526
R. K. YOSHIDA AND C. E. MEYERS
grouped teachers with students for only a half an hour, the Rosenthal-Jacobson replication investigations provided for teacherstudent contact for at least 1 month, more typically 1 year, permitting the development of expectancies for the students upon direct observation and interaction. In the present study, teacher subjects with several years of classroom experience were told that they were observing approximately 2 months of behavior. The teachers were judging in the context of a longitudinal sample of behavior rather than a single instance of interaction. The Jeachcrjs_reliancc upon_j^Jabel may have been reduced it is asserted_hcre, because of the availability of other cues for making an evaluation. This interpretation concurs with Dusek and O'Connoll (1973) and O'Connoll, Dusck, and Wheeler (1974) who found that student achievement appeared related to a teacher's personal ranking of students and not to a plausible but fabricated description of individual students even within the short period of 3 weeks. In other words, expectancies may be based upon personal observation by a teacher rather than a label given to a student. The finding of nonsignificant results of the labeling treatment may be due to methodological problems such as the content of the videotape or the procedures for presenting the labeling conditions, (a) The differential labels may not have been perceived by the teacher subjects. This explanation is not likely because the case descriptions of the child confederate described the child as attending a regular or special EMU class at four points in the narrative. The teacher subjects were given individual copies of one of the descriptions and were given ample time to read the case study, (b) The typical sixth-grade student may usually be expected to perform much better than the performance presented in the videotape; thus, he may have been perceived as atypical of sixth graders and his behavior may have been inconsistent with his label. However, 79 of the 80 participating teachers responded that the filmed behavior of the child and adult confederates were examples of behavior found in both the regular and EMU (upper level) classrooms in their school district. This finding attests to the internal validity of
the procedure; more specifically, the behavior displayed in the film was observed by the teacher subjects in their daily school experience. In short, it is very unlikely that the nonsignificant findings may be attributed to the methodology employed in this study. The videotape was not, of course, a representation of a semester's contact with the child, but the same claim to the validity of the procedure given above may apply here: The teachers did observe improved behavior and changed their expectancies with it and on debriefing did attest to the verisimilitude of the observed behavior as characteristic of children of the EMR or sixth-grade regular classes. Contrary to expectation, the main effect of teacher type was not significant nor was the interaction of teacher with either labels or trials, which suggests that in this study the teachers did not differ in their reactions to labels by the position they hold in school. One possible explanation for these nonsignificant results may be the relatively high degree of contact which the regular and EMR teachers had with both types of students. The teachers who were the subjects for this study were sampled from a large inner city school district which operated EMR classes in practically every elementary school building, thus providing abundant opportunity for these teachers to become aware of both regular and EMR students. This exposure to special students may have lessened thc_e_ff_ect of the label on the regular teachers? This result and the results of previous research (Brophy & Good, 1970; Good & Brophy, 1972) suggest that regardless of the teacher's position, it may be more important to know the teacher's past experience with various kinds of school children as well as his evaluation of individual students rather than his assumptions concerning the learning potential in the abstract of a particular group such as the EMR to which the student may belong. No doubt these interpretations are made in the context of a videotaped presentation of a small sample of a single child's behavior. The typical special education and regular elementary teacher operates in a more complex environment that includes more children, a diverse curriculum, and a broad
EFFECTS OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED LABEL range of student ability. Future investigation should begin to study the relationship between labels and their effects on teacher behavior' and student performance in the more natural situation of the classroom. REFERENCES Becker, H. S. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Glenooe, 111.: Free Press, 1963. Beez, W. V. Influence of biased psychological reports on teacher behavior and pupil performance. In M. B. Miles & W. W, Charters, Jr. (Eds.), Learning and social settings: New readings in the social psychology of education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. Teacher's communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374. Claiborn, W. L. Expectancy effects in the classroom: A failure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 377-383. Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). BMD: Biomedical computer programs (3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. Dunn, L. M. Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 5-22. Dusek, J. B., & O'Connell, E. J. Teacher expectancy effects on the achievement test performance of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 66, 371-377. Erikson, K. T. Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 1962, 9, 307-314. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 617-624. Gozali, J., & Meyen, E. L. The influence of the teacher expectancy phenomenon on the academic performances of educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. Journal of Special Education, 1970, 4, 417-424. Guskin, S. L. Measuring the strength of the stereotype of the mental defective. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 569-575. (a) Guskin, S. L. Dimensions of judged similarity among deviant types. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 68, 218-224. (b) Guskin, S. L. Social psychologies of mental deficiences. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. (c) Guskin, S. L., & Spicker, H. H. Educational research in mental retardation. In N. II. Ellis (Vol. 3) (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Hollinger, C. S., & Jones, R. L. Community attitudes toward slow learners and mental re-
527
tardates: What's in a name? Mental Retardation, 1970, 8, 19-23. Johnson, G. O. Special education for mentally handicapped—A paradox. Exceptional Children, 1962, 19, 62-69. Jones, R. L. Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 553-564. Jose, J., & Cody, J. J. Teacher-pupil interaction as it relates to attempted changes in teacher expectancy of academic ability and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 8, 39-49. Lewis, J. F. The community and the retarded: A study in social ambivalence. In G. Tarjan, R. K. Eyman, & C. E. Meyers (Eds.), Sociobehavioral studies in mental retardation: Papers in honor of Harvey F. Dingman. Monographs of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, 1973, No. 1, pp. 164-174. Meyers, C. E., Sitkei, E. G., & Watts, C. A. Attitudes toward special education and the handicapped in two community groups. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 78-84. O'Connell, E. J., Dusek, J. B., & Wheeler, II. J. A follow-up study of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 325-328. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil's intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Ross, S. L., Do Young, H. G., & Cohen, J. S. Confrontation: Special education placement and the law. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38, 5-12. Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., & Barrett, R. Effects of teacher's expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 6H, 49-54. Rubovits, P. C., & Maehr, M. L. Pygmalion analyzed: Toward an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 197-203. Shotel, J. R., lano, R. P., & MeGettigan, J. F. Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 677-683. Soule, D. Teacher bias effects with severely retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1972, 77, 208-211. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. The teacher's work book of 80,000 words. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1944. Underwood, B. J., & Richardson, J. Some verbal materials for the study of concept formation. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 63, 84-101. Williams, R. L. Abuses and misuses in testing black children. Counseling Psychologist, 1971, 0, 62-73. (Received October 4, 1974)
